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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-0194

LT Case No. 2016-DR-017416

_____________________________

BRYAN STEPHEN PRICHER,

Appellant,

v.

STACI ROCHELLE PRICHER,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.

Jennifer Opel Taylor, Judge.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris Appellate Law Office, Mims, for 

Appellant.

Maureen Monaghan Matheson, of Matheson Appellate Law, P.A., 

Satellite Beach, and Charles L. Dorfman, of Weaver & Dorfman, 

P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee.

September 21, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
### §1329. Mint: reports of Director

There may be printed, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, for distribution by the Treasury Department, two thousand copies of the annual report of the Director of the Mint on the operations of the mint and assay offices with appendices, and of the annual report of the Director of the Mint on the production of precious metals.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1270.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §273 (Mar. 4, 1907, No. 24, 34 Stat. 1424).
DRAWING NUMBER |
|

DRAWING NUMBER |
2/00,000

/

|
|

|
|

DRAWING NUMBER

LM- 96
| Bodega Bay, CA
PLAN HOLD CORPORATION «» JAVINE, CALIFORNIA

poo

|
|
|
L

-124*Q0’ 00” ~123°54’ 00” _ 24g’ an” Lame bane
38° 30’ 00” We _ 7 b23"48" 00 -123°42’ 00 -123*36' 00 -123%30’ 00” -123°24' 00” -123%18' 00” -123842/ 90" ~1232898° 99" 1232099 09"
We 38° 39/58"

ZZ? AER \ Ts TE SEEZI YD) aan en
will Py: a

2

LG

onuMllae Ny. CA |
ie es TEN AG a AN | | | | 43390
eS my

:
e
see oo A :

38°18 00"

38°18’ 00”

S22 OVYTY eo, x =
SENso//
CCE a

PAWL TZ
a IN IIS 7 3350
ay C7 = « | .
sy WU \ For inshore data gee | | 43340

G ty q Lo % yee vik eS = \ & \ Bodega Bay (96)1:100,000
eo L i
OH | 4
\

38" 12’ 00" — ee AM WEWW SS, WHE 2 SY .
«@ e / <>) g ii g “# \ ;
Bis sal I COG
A a | ge me i i
ty) : LW ‘ \\ | \ 43310

Joe MET NCAINANS.O
a ; Lunt seeee-on
j (

43330

= 4

COATING THEA AY

38712’ 00"

i

43320

Nig YA
ey: Hwa
yy) es !
= Te a SC at ae

;
im ? LJ)
38°06’ 00” Pe? LA. Me
I
S
ZF i -
\ ( ‘el x |

tah d Lesbo CARLOS

C
AON

O OS X
% \ ") o g KG P SS = al \ \ a: wy
seo fh FICC aot : \ fe

-124°00" 00” -123°54’ 00” ~123%48’ 00’ - 3° 42/00” “ao” “a9”
0 123° 42°00 -123°36"00 -123 30’ 00 ~123%24’ 00” -123%18' 00” ~123%12' 00" -123706' 00” ~123 00’ 00”

BODEGA BAY N380123W
SCALE: 1:100,000 :

NOS MULTIBEAM SURVEYS ~
() Contours in corrected meters 214) Ie
JODEGA BAY (N380123W) i .
(February 14, 1978)

#### Alwinseal, Inc., Appellant, v Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondent.

In an action on a surety bond for the benefit of claimants supplying labor and materials, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 3, 1977, which granted, upon certain conditions, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on a forum selection clause contained in a surety bond. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The defendant issued a surety bond which has as its principal the general contractor for a construction project located in New Jersey. The bond contained a forum selection clause which required that any suit or action on the bond be brought in the State where the project was located (i.e., New Jersey). The bond was incorporated by reference into the subcontract entered into between the plaintiff and the general *804contractor. The subcontract also contained a clause specifying that it was to be governed by the laws of New Jersey. That the plaintiff is a New York corporation is "an important factor to be considered” when determining the proper forum for this action (see *Silver v Great Amer. Ins. Co.,*29 NY2d 356, 361). However, other factors lead us to conclude that New Jersey is the more appropriate forum. The most substantial of these factors is the forum selection clause contained in the surety bond, and incorporated into the subcontract. "[B]y their own exercise of discretion in agreeing upon a forum, the parties themselves obviated consideration of inconvenience to a party or witness” *(Young & Co. v Leong,*53 AD2d 515, 516, app dsmd 40 NY2d 984). Therefore, the dismissal of this action, on the conditions set by Special Term, was proper. Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 81.98 Liability of GSEs and Federal Reserve Banks.

A GSE and the Federal Reserve Banks may rely on the information provided in a Transfer Message, and are not required to verify the information. A GSE and the Federal Reserve Banks shall not be liable for any action taken in accordance with the information set out in a Transfer Message, or evidence submitted in support thereof.
### §42105. Disclosure to public

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Maritime Commission may refuse to disclose to the public a response or other information submitted to it under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1550.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 42105 | 46 App.:876(h). | June 5, 1920, ch. 250, §19(h); as added Pub. L. 101–595, title I, §103(2), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2979; Pub. L. 105–258, title III, §301, Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1915. |

Section
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Blanks, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, imposed February 23, 1978, upon defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the sentence being a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life. Sentence affirmed. The only issue that the People have raised, and that we have passed upon on this appeal, is the legality of the sentence imposed by the trial court, and not the propriety of that sentence. We hold that the sentence imposed by the trial court was a legal sentence (see *People v James,*43 NY2d 17). We note that defendant has appealed from the judgment convicting him of the crime of murder in the first degree and that appeal has not as yet been perfected. Upon the perfection of defendant’s appeal, he may raise any issues, as he sees fit, with regard to the sentence imposed. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,133,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,900
<INVENTORY>                                  1,197,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,453,800
<PP&E>                                       2,208,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,079,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,133,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,067,600
<BONDS>                                        961,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       169,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,522,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,133,600
<SALES>                                      1,565,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,290,800
<CGS>                                          969,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,376,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               636,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                247,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    89,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            158,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
        

</TABLE>
§ 35.810 Notices and pamphlet. ( a ) *Notices.* When evaluation or hazard reduction is undertaken, the Department shall provide a notice to occupants in accordance with § 35.125. A visual assessment alone is not considered an evaluation for the purposes of this part.
( b ) *Lead hazard information pamphlet.* HUD shall provide the lead hazard information pamphlet in accordance with § 35.130.
[64 FR 50211, Sept. 15, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 34272, June 21, 2004]
### §984. Legal subdivisions mostly wet and unfit for cultivation

In making out lists and plats of the lands aforesaid all legal subdivisions, the greater part whereof is wet and unfit for cultivation, shall be included in said lists and plats, but when the greater part of a subdivision is not of that character, the whole of it shall be excluded therefrom.

(R.S. §2481.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2481 derived from act Sept. 28, 1850, ch. 84, §3, 9 Stat. 519.
September 18, 2015

Mr. Scott Slepecki

232 Long Ridge Drive

Corapolis, PA 15108

Dear Mr. Slepecki:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2717, on June 16, 2015, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-7107 September Term, 2022

1:22-cv-01350-UNA

Filed On: October 11, 2022

Kent Allen, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Parag Agrawal, Twitter CEO and Deja Trimble,

Recording Artist,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 21, 2022, be

affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without

prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,

668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of

any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.

41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk
### §60. Penalty for suppression of voluntary information incident to accidents; separability

Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent, or effect of which shall be to prevent employees of any common carrier from furnishing voluntarily information to a person in interest as to the facts incident to the injury or death of any employee, shall be void, and whoever, by threat, intimidation, order, rule, contract, regulation, or device whatsoever, shall attempt to prevent any person from furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, or whoever discharges or otherwise disciplines or attempts to discipline any employee for furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to void any contract, rule, or regulation with respect to any information contained in the files of the carrier, or other privileged or confidential reports.

If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Apr. 22, 1908, ch. 149, §10, as added Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 685, §3, 53 Stat. 1404.)
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Gustav Radtke et al.

(Argued December 6, 1881;

decided December 13, 1881.)

*E. H. Berm*for motion.

*E. T. Wood*opposed.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellant perfects his appeal and "pays costs as provided in order.

All concur.

Ho opinion.
#### § 791.101 Applicability and scope.

This part describes the role and responsibility of HUD in allocation of budget authority (pursuant to section 213 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1439)) for housing assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Section 8 and public housing) and under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s), and of budget authority for housing assistance under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1710q). This part does not apply to budget authority for the public housing operating fund or capital fund.

[64 FR 26639, May 14, 1999]
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.363 Housing programs: Protection of the pet. ( a ) If the health or safety of a pet is threatened by the death or incapacity of the pet owner, or by other factors that render the pet owner unable to care for the pet, the project owner may contact the responsible party or parties listed in the pet registration required under § 5.350(d)(1)(iii).
( b ) If the responsible party or parties are unwilling or unable to care for the pet, or the project owner, despite reasonable efforts, has been unable to contact the responsible party or parties, the project owner may contact the appropriate State or local authority (or designated agent of such an authority) and request the removal of the pet.
( c ) If there is no State or local authority (or designated agent of such an authority) authorized to remove a pet under these circumstances and the project owner has placed a provision in the lease agreement (as described in § 5.360(c)(2)), the project owner may enter the pet owner's unit, remove the pet, and place the pet in a facility that will provide care and shelter until the pet owner or a representative of the pet owner is able to assume responsibility for the pet, but not longer than 30 days.
( d ) The cost of the animal care facility provided under this section shall be borne by the pet owner. If the pet owner (or the pet owner's estate) is unable or unwilling to pay, the cost of the animal care facility may be paid from the pet deposit, if imposed under the pet rules.
Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 4 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 5 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 6 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 7 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 8 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 9 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 10 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 11 of 12Case 3:09-cv-00989-BZ Document 25 Filed 03/02/10 Page 12 of 12
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Docket 46-2004] 

The comment period for the application submitted by the Port of Houston Authority on behalf of ExxonMobil Corporation (ExxonMobil), to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 84O at the ExxonMobil oil refinery complex in Baytown, Texas (69 FR 64026, 11/3/04), is being extended to January 18, 2005, to allow interested parties additional time in which to comment. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until February 2, 2005. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses: 

1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005; or 

2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 04-28434 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Louis Blumenthal et al., Copartners Doing Business as Hudson Cold Company, Respondents, v. Alpine Syrup & Fountain Supply Co., Inc., Appellant.

On call of the calendar, there being no appearance by appellant and no record having been filed, respondents’ motion to dismiss appeal is granted, without costs, and appeal dismissed. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Document

Exhibit 10.14

SECOND AMENDMENT  
TO THE
MOOG INC. 2014 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




WHEREAS, the Moog Inc. 2014 Long Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted effective January 7, 2015; and 
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Moog Inc. (the “Board”) reserved the right under Section 21 of the Plan to amend the Plan; and 
WHEREAS, the Board now wishes to amend the Plan to change the method of determining the fair market value of shares of the Class B Common Stock under the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective with respect to grants, exercise, settlement or vesting of Awards on or after November 15, 2016, as follows:
1.    Section 2(p) is amended by deleting subsection (1) in its entirety and replacing it as follows:
“(1)    If the Company Stock is listed for trading on a national securities exchange,


    (i)    with respect to grant dates of Awards, the Fair Market Value of the Class A Common Stock will be the closing price per share of the Class A Common Stock on the exchange on the last trading day immediately preceding the grant date, and the Fair Market value of the Class B Common Stock will be the closing price per share of the Class B Common Stock on the exchange on the last trading day immediately preceding the grant date; and 


    (ii)    with respect to the exercise dates of SARs and Options, the Fair Market Value of the Class A Common Stock will be the closing price per share of the Class A Common Stock on the exchange on the last trading day immediately preceding the exercise date, and the Fair Market Value of the Class B Common Stock will be the closing price per share of the Class B Common Stock on the exchange on the last trading day immediately preceding the exercise date.”


2.    Section 2(p) is amended by adding the following subsection (4) to the end thereof:
“(4)    For purposes of tax reporting with respect to Awards, the Fair Market Value of the shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock granted, exercised, issued or vesting will be based, subject to subsections (2) and (3), on the closing price per share of the Common Stock on the exchange on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of grant, exercise, settlement or vesting of the Award, as the case may be.”




3.    In all other respects the Plan remains unchanged.









Exhibit 10.14

                                Moog Inc.




Dated: November 15, 2016                By: _________________________


Approved by Resolution of the Board of Directors adopted dated November 15, 2016
### §364f. Application to naming of offices or establishments

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applying to the naming of the offices or establishments of any Federal agency.

(July 25, 1947, ch. 330, §7, 61 Stat. 457.)