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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-4007

_____________________________

MELISSA and CHARLES HARCUS,

Appellants,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

February 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, 

P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Andrew McGinley, General Counsel, Department of Children and 

Families, Tallahassee; Miriam R. Coles of Henry Buchanan, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 5-6, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622,                         *bissonettegb@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 23, 2017.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-18198 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,506
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          15,176
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   820
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,909
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,835
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            10,411
<LOANS>                                        116,967
<ALLOWANCE>                                        429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,399
<DEPOSITS>                                     146,361
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,015
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 177,399
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,776
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,928
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   745
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,449
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,268
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,181
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    466
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         466
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       286
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.80
<LOANS-NON>                                        165
<LOANS-PAST>                                       165
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   429
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  429
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               316
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            113


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10136]


Determination Pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as the Secretary of State 
under the Foreign Missions Act, (``the Act''), I hereby determine it is 
reasonably necessary to achieve one or more of the purposes set forth 
in section 204(b) of the Act to designate 2790 Green Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94123, which is owned by the Government of the Russian 
Federation, as a location and facilities for which entry or access is 
strictly prohibited by all individuals, including but not limited to 
representatives or employees of the Russian Government and their 
dependents, without first obtaining written permission from the 
Department of State's Office of Foreign Missions. Such prohibitions 
will take effect as of 11:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on September 2, 
2017.
    As a result, all persons on the said property are required to 
depart the premises no later than the date and time stated above.
    For purposes of this determination, 2790 Green Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94123, includes any buildings and/or improvements thereon 
and the land ancillary thereto.
    Access to the property will be subject to terms and conditions set 
forth by the Office of Foreign Missions.

Rex W. Tillerson,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-20268 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lincoln Monroe BROCK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7266.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Lincoln Monroe Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*531PER CURIAM:

Lincoln Monroe Brock appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Crim. Pro. 33 motion for a new trial predicated on newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brock’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Brock,*No. 1:03-cr-00429-JAB (M.D.N.C., Aug. 10, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2552 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2552

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to change the state of mind 
    requirement for certain identity theft offenses, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2011

  Mr. Goodlatte (for himself and Mr. Schiff) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to change the state of mind 
    requirement for certain identity theft offenses, 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 ``Identity Theft Improvement Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. STATE OF MIND REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT AND AGGRAVATED 
              IDENTITY THEFT.

    Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) State of Mind Proof Requirement.--In a prosecution under 
subsection (a)(7) or under section 1028A(a), the Government need not 
prove that the defendant knew the means of identification was of 
another person.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

I, Rocco DelGuercio, Chief Financial Officer of CM Finance Inc certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CM Finance Inc;

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(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(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 functions):

(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.

Dated this 6th day of September 2017.



|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    Rocco
DelGuercio                 
|    |  | Rocco DelGuercio
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10291 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARCUS HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-234-1-H

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcus Harris appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 1344. The district court sentenced Harris to 60 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, restitution of $518,412, and a $100 special assessment. Harris’s substantive issues on appeal concern the determination of his offense level and the amount of restitution. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal arguing that Harris’s plea agreement contains a waiver of appeal that bars hisNo. 05-10291 -2- appeal. Harris argues that the waiver should not be enforced because it was unknowing and involuntary and that to enforce the waiver would be a miscarriage of justice. We review de novo whether a waiver provision bars an appeal. United States v. Baymon , 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). We determine whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at issue. United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). The record reflects that Harris knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a direct appeal of his sentence, except for a sentence that was in excess of the statutory maximum, that was the result of an upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, or that was an arithmetic error. United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Burns , 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2005). Harris does not assert either an upward departure or an arithmetic error. Harris argues under Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. We rejected this argument in United States v.
Cortez , 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 502 (2005). Because Harris’s issues on appeal do not fall within the preserved exclusions to the valid waiver of appeal, they are barred. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED because a valid appeal waiver does not implicate ourNo. 05-10291 -3- jurisdiction. United States v. Story , 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00493-CV

TIDEPORT DISTRIBUTING, INC.

v.

RAMON CERDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF BRITTANY CERDA, DECEASED

On Appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-2767-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed against party incurring same. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 20, 2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-17-040]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

September 19, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

Open to the public.

# Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (Third Review) (Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by October 10, 2017.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 11, 2017.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-19651 Filed 9-12-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-2, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         17,545
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               44,146
<PP&E>                                         1,418,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,285,796)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,691
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,037
<SALES>                                        55,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               57,768
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  82,495<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (53,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (53,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (53,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
J. 

give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective 

assistance of counsel if they are supported by substantial evidence and not 

clearly wrong but review the district court's application of the law to those 

facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 

(2005). 

At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, Sudberry claimed 

that counsel told him there was a plea offer but never said what the offer 

was. He also argued that he never received the offer in writing. Both trial 

counsel testified that the plea offer was communicated to Sudberry, both 

orally and in writing, and that Sudberry was adamant about refusing any 

offer that was not a dismissal of all charges. A letter hand-delivered by 

counsel to Sudberry, spelling out the terms of the plea offer, was admitted 

into evidence. The district court found that Sudberry's testimony was not 

credible and that the testimony of prior counsel was credible. Because the 

district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

are not clearly wrong, we conclude that Sudberry has failed to 

demonstrate deficiency and therefore he is not entitled to relief on this 

claim. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Pickering Saitta 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(D) I947A are. 
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge 

Scott W. Edwards 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

<t)) t947A.