alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-4499

_____________________________

GARY ALEXANDER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

June 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven D. LUCK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20444

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven D. Luck appeals his sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Luck’s offenses occurred prior to the decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and he was sentenced after *Booker*was decided. Luck argues that, although he is entitled to retroactive application of *Booker’s*Sixth Amendment holding, the remedial portion of *Booker’s*hold*469ing, which made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, may not be applied in his case without violating the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution. He thus argues that the district court should have applied the Guidelines as mandatory in his case but should not have enhanced his sentence based on facts that were not charged in the superceding information and were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As Luck concedes, this argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Austin,*432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Scroggins,*411 F.3d 572, 575-76 (5th Cir.2005). He has raised the issue to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
The District Court of the 2nd Judicial District. County of Silver Bow.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. WADE PETERSEN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-150BN DECISION

On January 21,2009, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with Ten (10) years suspended, for the offense of Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence, a felony; Count II: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony; Count III: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony; and Count IV: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Hit and Run Involving Death or Personal Injury, a felony.

On August 5, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

*64The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Deputy County Attorney, Mike Clague.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Alternate Member, Hon. Loren Tucker.
Exhibit 11.1

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Nine Months Ended                      Three Months Ended
                                                        September 30,                           September 30,
                                                  1999                1998                1999                1998
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------
<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss)                             $    385,421        $ (8,580,691)       $   (930,183)       $ (2,094,108)
Less: Preferred stock dividends                   (217,035)             (5,538)            (71,971)             (1,846)
         Deduction related to Series C
            Convertible Preferred Stock           (133,320)                 --                  --                  --
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------
Net income (loss) applicable to
   common stock                               $     35,066        $ (8,586,229)       $ (1,002,154)       $ (2,095,954)
                                              ============        ============        ============        ============
Basic:
     Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding             28,790,000          28,677,000          28,997,000          28,685,000
                                              ============        ============        ============        ============
     Basic net income (loss) per common
          and common equivalent share         $        .00        $       (.30)       $       (.03)       $       (.07)
                                              ============        ============        ============        ============
Diluted:
     Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding             28,790,000          28,677,000          28,997,000          28,685,000
     Weighted average number of
          dilutive common equivalents                   --                  --                  --                  --
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------
     Weighted average number of
          common and common
          equivalent shares outstanding         28,790,000          28,677,000          28,997,000          28,685,000
                                              ============        ============        ============        ============
     Diluted net income (loss) per
          common and common
          equivalent share                    $        .00        $       (.30)       $       (.03)       $       (.07)
                                              ============        ============        ============        ============
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juanita E. LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6974.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Juanita E. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Juanita E. Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion for modification of her judgment of conviction entered on September 12, 2000. To the extent that the court construed Lawson’s motion as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifi*215cate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent the court considered Lawson’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of the September 12, 2000, order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2674 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2674

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or modacrylic 
                             filament tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or modacrylic 
                             filament tow.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC FILAMENT TOW.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.21 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acrylic or modacrylic 
filament tow) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 
column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12849]



[[Page 26726]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1833-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Georgia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1833-DR), dated April 23, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of April 23, 2009.

    Baker and Early Counties for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance).
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12849 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-23-P
EXHIBIT 4.6





AMENDMENT TO
THE CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION,


PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF


THE SERIES L PREFERRED STOCK OF


RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


DATED APRIL 30, 1999, AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 18, 2000





Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the
Corporation), hereby certifies that the following resolutions were adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors as provided in the Corporations Certificate of
Incorporation, and by the sole holder of the Series L Preferred Stock of the Corporation pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware:





RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Section E(5)(f) of the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series L Preferred Stock of the Corporation filed
with the Delaware Secretary of State on April 30, 1999, as amended February 18, 2000, be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:





RPI shall at all times reserve and keep available, out of its authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock, solely for the purpose of effecting the conversion of the shares of Series L Preferred at the time
outstanding, 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock.





RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Amendment to the Certificate of Designations,
Preferences and Rights of Series L Preferred Stock, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (Amendment), is hereby authorized and approved and the appropriate officers of the Corporation are hereby authorized to execute,
file and deliver such Amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State;





RESOLVED FURTHER, that the officers of the Company be,
and each of them hereby is, authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Company or otherwise, to make all such arrangements, to do and perform all such acts and things, and to execute and deliver all such officers certificates
and such other instruments and documents as they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to effectuate fully the purpose of each and all the foregoing resolutions (hereby ratifying and confirming any and all actions taken heretofore and hereafter
to accomplish such purposes, all or singular).




1




---

IN WITNESS WHEROF, this Amendment to the certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights of the Series L Preferred Stock of
the Corporation is executed on behalf of the Corporation this 27th day of April, 2000.





RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:

/s/    LAWRENCE E. BULLOCKLawrence E. Bullock, Vice President of Administration and Finance, CFO and Secretary


| | 
| | 






2
Edmondson, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the result and in the opinion of the Court, except I dissent from the Court’s conclusion on sentencing discussed at III.A. of the Court’s opinion: Given the nature of the evidence before the district court at sentencing, I cannot say that the district court committed clear error. I would affirm the convictions and sentences.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    Manish Singh                  
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Manish Singh, Ph.D.                  
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 203 (Thursday, October 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54584-54585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract

[[Page 54585]]

proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel Production, Analysis and Distribution of Cannabis and 
Marijuana Cigarettes and Related Materials (7773).
    Date: October 28, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Scott Chen, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Room 
220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-9511, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54373c313a27371439353d387a3a3d3c7a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7949f92998494b79a969e9bd9999e9fd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25375 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-1 No. 33-51950) pertaining to the l992 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of
Kankakee Bancorp, Inc. and the Kankakee Federal Amended and Restated 401 (K)
Savings Plan, of our report dated February 6, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Kankakee Bancorp, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Champaign, Illinois
March 26, 2003
#### In the Matter of Sherry Pitt, Appellant, v Scott Reid, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 684]

In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), dated November 2, 2012, as, after a hearing, in effect, denied that branch of her petition which was for an order directing the parties and their children to enroll in the “Family Bridges Program,” and directed her and the subject children to enroll and engage in family counseling.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In these related custody proceedings, the Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother’s petition which was for an order directing the parties and their children to enroll in the “Family Bridges Program,” a program to treat parental alienation which was recommended by the court-appointed forensic evaluator. The recommendations of court-appointed experts are but one factor to be considered and are entitled to some weight *(see Baker v Baker,*66 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]; *Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia,*47 AD3d 819, 821 [2008]; *Matter of Kozlowski v Mangialino, 36*AD3d 916 [2007]). Such opinions, however, are not determinative and must not be permitted to usurp the judgment of the trial judge *(see Baker v Baker,*66 AD3d at 723; *Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia,*47 AD3d at 821; *Matter of Kozlowski v Mangialino,*36 AD3d 916 [2007]). Consequently, in this case the court was not obligated to adopt the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator. The court adequately explained its reasons for disregarding that recommendation and instead directing the mother and the subject children to enroll and engage in family counseling *(see Baker v Baker,*66 AD3d at 723-724; *Berstell v Krasa-Berstell,*272 AD2d 566 [2000]). Further, the court’s determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra,*294 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; *Matter of Maysonet v Contreras,*290 AD2d 510 [2002]). Dillon, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.