alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2015

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2825

Lower Tribunal No. 10-43274

________________



### Aqua Life Corp.

, Petitioner,

vs.



### Humberto Reyes

, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

– Prohibition.

Peter T. Mavrick and Victor M. Velarde (Fort Lauderdale)

, for petitioner.

Sina Negahbani

, for respondent.

Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and WELLS, JJ.

EMAS, J.

Petitioner, Aqua Life Corp. (“Petitioner”), petitions this court for issuance of

a writ of prohibition to prohibit the trial court from continuing to exercisejurisdiction over this matter, which was dismissed by order of the trial court

rendered February 1, 2013, pursuant to a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.

The record reflects that the February 1, 2013 order of dismissal was never

appealed. 1

More than eighteen months later, on October 10, 2014, the plaintiff below,

Humberto Reyes (“Respondent”) filed a motion for status conference. There

appears to be some dispute over whether Petitioner was served with this motion or

the notice of hearing. However, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not appear at

the hearing on the motion for status conference held October 27, 2014. It is also

undisputed that, following the hearing, the trial court entered orders setting the

case for trial and referring the parties to mediation.

Notwithstanding Respondent’s assertion that the trial court vacated the

earlier dismissal order based on an ore tenus motion made by Respondent at the

October 27th hearing (at which neither Petitioner nor its counsel was present), 2 the

trial court did not enter an order vacating the dismissal or reinstating the action.

Thus, because the earlier dismissal order had already become final, the trial court

1 An order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution is final for purposes of

appeal. Bay Park Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., v. Triple M. Roofing Corp.

, 55 So.

3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hunnewell v. Palm Beach County

, 925 So. 2d 468

(Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Elegele v. Halbert

, 890 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

2 No transcript of the October 27, 2014 hearing has been provided.

2was without jurisdiction to enter any further orders. Herskowitz v. Herskowitz

,

513 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). 3

Thus, we grant the petition and quash the orders setting the case for trial and

referring the case to mediation, as the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter

those orders, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. Confident that the

trial court will comply with this opinion, we withhold formal issuance of the writ.

3 We further note that, even if the court intended to vacate the February 1, 2013

dismissal, it appears it was without jurisdiction to do so. See R&A Trucking, Inc.

v. General Host. Corp.

, 399 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Derma Lift

Salon, Inc. v. Swanko

, 419 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Corvette Country,

Inc. v. Leonardo

, 997 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Given our decision,

however, we find it unnecessary to reach this issue.

3
#### § 720.307 Interagency report clearance.

The reports contained in this regulation have been cleared in accordance with FPMR 101-11.11 and assigned interagency report control number 0305-OPM-AN.
Exhibit 31.1  Certification Pursuant to pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  I, Mr. Biao Jin, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aida Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "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. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am 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 I 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) 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  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. As the registrant's certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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.  /s/ Biao Jin Biao Jin Chief Executive Officer Date: August 19, 2008
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0333 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-025-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) Model EC225LP, 

AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 19 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of the hydraulic system in the main 

gearbox compartment and consequently, loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $2,000 for the replacement

Labor per Helicopter

(1.5 work-hour x $85/workhour per inspection)

(2.5 work-hour x $85/workhour for the replacement)

$128

$213

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $128 per inspection

$2,213 for the replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $2,432 per an inspection

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Rao Edupuganti
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 12 - 0530 - CV

________________________ In the Interest of M.P., W.P. and G.P., Children On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Potter County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 76,959 - 2, Honorable Pamela Sirmon , Presiding 

### April 23 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before this court is a motion to dismiss the appeal signed by both appellant and her attorney. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rul e of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant = s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.
#### § 1500.13 Machine cavities in operation.

*Machine cavities in operation* means those machine cavities associated with a block machine that have produced concrete masonry units within the last six months of the date set for determining eligibility and is fully operable and capable of producing concrete masonry units.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.  Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 2, 2004.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1.  Bancshares of Camden, Inc.*, Camden, Tennessee; to engage                     *de novo*                     through its subsidiary, BOC Reinsurance Company, Ltd., Crossville, Tennessee, in reinsuring credit life, accident and health insurance, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(i) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-25531 Filed 11-17-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Talleyrand Terminal Railroad Company, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status

of Talleyrand Terminal Railroad Company, Inc. (Talleyrand) as an employer

under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231 et sea.) (RRA) and the 

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et seq.) (RUIA).

Information about Talleyrand was furnished by William A. Jasper, Corporate

Secretary. Mr. Jasper advised that Talleyrand has one employee who was first

compensated as of February 19, 1996. Rail operations began July 28, 1996.

Talleyrand operates over approximately ten miles of track at the Jacksonville

Port Authority, Jacksonville, Florida. It provides railroad service to the

Jacksonville Port Authority and its customers/tenants at the Talleyrand Docks

and Terminal Facility in Jacksonville. Talleyrand interchanges with Norfolk

Southern (BA No.1 525) and CSX Transportation (BA No.1 524). Authority for

Talleyrand's railroad operation was obtained in Surface Transportation Board

Finance Docket No. 32865, decided March 1, 1996.

Section 1 of the RRA defines the term "employer" to include:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transportation Board under part A of subtitle IV of title 49.

[45 U.S.C. §231 (a)(1)(i)3.

Section 1 of the RUIA contains essentially the same definition, as does the 

Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. §3201 et sea.) (RRTA), which is

administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Based upon the information summarized above, the Board finds that Talleyrand

became a rail carrier employer under the RRA and RUIA effective February 1 9,

1996. Ch Rev. Ruling 82-100, 1982-1 C.B. 1 55, wherein the IRS ruled that a

company becomes an employer subject to RRTA taxes on the date the company

first hires employees to perform functions directly related to its carrier 

operations. •

Glen L. Bower

BCD 1996-80 

BA# 5565
B.C.D. 00-39 SEP 1 9 2000

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION 

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Yorkrail, Inc.

York Railway Company

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC

Yorkrail, LLC

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

status of Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Yorkrail, Inc., York

Railway Company, Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC, and

Yorkrail, LLC, as employers under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231

et seg.) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.).

Information regarding these companies was provided by Ann Wileczek, Vice 

President, Human Resources, York Railway Company, and was also obtained

from Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 33815. On December 1,

1999, Yorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company,

employers under the Acts (BA. Nos. 2351 and 2314, respectively) were merged

into a new company, York Railway Company. That company took over the rail

operations previously performed by Yorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company. However, assets of those two companies

were transferred to two new companies, Yorkrail, LLC, and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC. These two new companies are

subsidiaries of York Railway Company and have no employees and perform no

operations. The Surface Transportation Board stated that they will “assume

common carrier status by virtue of the ownership of the underlying rail assets

that [York Railway Company] will operate.”

The evidence of record establishes that York Railway Company and its two

subsidiaries, Yorkrail, LLC, and Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad

Company, LLC, are carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface

Transportation Board. Accordingly, it is determined that they are employers

within the meaning of section l(aXl)(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45

U.S.C. § 231(aXlXi)) and the corresponding provision of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act as of December 1, 1999, the date as of which

.4

BA# 2314
-2-

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Yorkrail, Inc.

York Railway Company

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC

Yorkrail, LLC

operations were commenced. The status ofYorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company as employers under the Acts is terminated as

of the same date.
### §3211. Public documents

The Vice President, Members of Congress, the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, each of the elected officers of the House of Representatives (other than a Member of the House) during the 90-day period immediately following the expiration of their respective terms of office, may send and receive as franked mail all public documents printed by order of Congress.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 754; Pub. L. 93–191, §2, Dec. 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 97–69, §5(a), Oct. 26, 1981, 95 Stat. 1043.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–69 substituted "during the 90-day period immediately" for "until the first day of April".

1973—Pub. L. 93–191 substituted "each of the elected officers of the House of Representatives (other than a Member of the House) until the first day of April" for "the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, until the thirtieth day of June".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1973 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–191 effective Dec. 18, 1973, see section 14 of Pub. L. 93–191, set out as a note under section 3210 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
§ 950.502 Solicitation methods. ( a ) Employee solicitations shall be conducted during duty hours using methods that permit true voluntary giving and shall reserve to the individual the option of disclosing any gift or keeping it confidential. Campaign kick-offs, victory events, awards, and other non-solicitation events to build support for the CFC are encouraged.
( b ) Special CFC events are permitted during the campaign if approved by the appropriate agency head or government official, consistent with agency ethics regulations. No costs for food or entertainment at a special event may be charged to the CFC. CFC special events must be undertaken in the spirit of generating interest in the CFC and be open to all individuals without regard to whether an individual participates in the CFC. If prizes are offered, they must be modest in nature and value. Examples of appropriate prizes may include opportunities for lunch with agency officials, agency parking spaces for a specific time period, and gifts of minimal financial value. Any special CFC event and associated prize or gift must be approved in advance by the Agency's ethics official to ensure that the special event is consistent with Office of Government Ethics regulations and its own regulations and policy. No funds may be raised or collected at these events.
### §151108. Nonapplication of audit requirements

The audit requirements of section 10101 of this title do not apply to the corporation.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1399.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 151108 | (no source). | |

Section

This section is added to except the National Education Association of the United States from the application of section 10101 of the revised title, restating 36:1101–1103, which imposes audit requirements on certain federally chartered corporations. The Association is not included in the list of corporations set out in 36:1101 to which the audit requirements apply.
EMPLOYER DETERMINATION

Floydada and Plainview Railroad Company

Seagraves, Whiteface & Lubbock Railroad Company

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the continued

status of Floydada and Plainview Railroad Company (FPRC), B.A. No. 3874, and

Seagraves, Whiteface & Lubbock Railroad Company (SWLR), B.A. No. 3872, as

employers under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et seg.HRRA) and the

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et sea.) (RUIA).

In Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Docket No. 32796, decided December 19,

1995, West Texas and Lubbock Railroad Company (WTLR), B.A. No. 2871, filed a

notice of exemption to acquire from SWLR and operate approximately 113 miles of

SWLR's rail line. WTLR also obtained ancillary overhead trackage rights held by SWLR

over certain lines and yard tracks of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company, B.A. No 1702. In ICC Docket No. 32795, also decided December 19,

1995, Plainview Terminal Company (PTC), B.A. No. 4863, filed a notice of exemption

to acquire the operating rights of FPRC. PTC will provide local switching service on

approximately 4.6 miles of rail line owned by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe

Railway Company.

Information regarding FPRC and SWLR was provided by Mr. Bruce H. Borland,

Chairman of Temco Corporation (American Railway Corporation). According to Mr.

Borland, FPRC and SWLR sold all assets to West Texas and Lubbock Railroad. He

stated that SWLR terminated all of its employees and last compensated its employees

on December 31, 1 995. SWLR submitted to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), its

annual report of compensation for calendar year 1995. The annual report indicates

that it is the final report. Mr. Borland stated that there has never been a payroll for

FPRC. According to the RRB's records, the last annual report submitted by FPRC was

for calendar year 1993, which was posted as a zero employee compensation report.

Section 202.11 (20 CFR § 202.11) of the Board's regulations states:

The employer status of any company or person shall terminate whenever

such company or person loses any of the characteristics essential to the 

existence of an employer status.

According to ICC Docket Numbers 32795 and 32796, FPRC and SWLR's rail line were

acquired by railroad corporations covered under the RRA and the RUIA. Mr. Borland 

stated that both FPRC and SWLR sold all of their assets to West Texas and Lubbock

Railroad. He further stated that SWLR last compensated its employees December 31, 

1995, and FPRC did not have any employees. Since FPRC and SWLR no longer

possess the characteristics of operating railroad companies, FPRC and SWLR are no

longer covered employers under the Acts.

BCD 1996-61 BA # 3874
-2-

Floydada and Plainview Railroad Company

Seagraves, Whiteface & Lubbock Railroad Company

The Board therefore finds that effective with the close of business December 31,

1995, the Floydada and Plainview Railroad Company and Seagraves, Whiteface &

Lubbock Railroad Company ceased being covered employers under the RRA and the

RUIA.

(Jerome F. Kever