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

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RUBY TUESDAY, INC. AND CATHERINE ANDERSON

,
Petitioner s ,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 1158

KAREN METALONIS

, Respondent

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

Petition for Certi orari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Lake County

, Mark J. Hill
, Judge.
Michael R. D'Lugo, of Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P

. A

. , Orlando, for Petitioner s

. Kurt Zaner, of Zaner Harden Law, LLP, Denver, CO, and Charles T. Douglas, of Douglas & Hedstrom, P.A., Palatka, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners challenge an order compelling the production of an incident report

prepared after Respondent allegedly was injured when a chai r collapsed at a Ruby

Tuesday restaurant. Although the trial court ’s order compelling production of the incident2 repo rt does not provide the court’s reasoning
, Respondent argued below that the report
was not made in anticipation of litigation and that she had a demonstrated need for the

report nevertheless.

The determination of whether an incident report was prepared in anticipation of

litigation turns on whether “the document was prepared in response to some event which

foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim in the future.” Marshalls of MA, Inc. v.

Minsal
, 932 So. 2d 444, 446

- 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Although the subjective intent of the

reporter in making the report might be relevant to this determination, it is by no means

dispositive because an objective standard applies . Here, the reporter testified that she

made the report in accordance with compa ny policy to report incidents of injury to patrons.

The fact that the reporter did not personally foresee the potential claim and did not know
the purpose for the company policy did not negate a finding that the report was work

produc t. It was clear that the alleged in jury was caused by an object in Petitioners ’ control

and there was some evidence to suggest that Petitioner s had prior knowledge of the

defective condition of the chair

. Under the circumstances presented here , it was

foreseeable that the ev ent might form the basis for a claim. Accordingly, the incident

report was protected work product.
As for Respondent’s argument regarding need, we conclude without elaboration

that the present record demonstrates that Respondent did not meet her burden on this

issue

.
ORDER QUASHED.

COHEN , C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY , JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Frank Caruso et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners, v. Abraham D. Beame, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed, on constraint of *Matter of Dinan*v. *Joseph*(278 App. Div. 692, affd. 304 N. Y. 696) and the petition dismissed, without costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Title IV Additional Servicers and “Not For Profit” Servicers – as of 07-19-2023
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                ------------------------------
                                                 1994    1995    1996    1997
                                                ------  ------  ------  ------
<S>                                             <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Operating income (loss).......................  (2,358) 28,047  45,382  82,913
Portion of rental expenses deemed to represent
 interest.....................................   2,174   2,767   3,000   4,567
                                                ------  ------  ------  ------
Earnings (loss) before fixed charges..........    (184) 30,814  48,382  87,480
                                                ======  ======  ======  ======
Interest expense..............................   4,486   8,058  15,212  22,585
Portion of rental expenses deemed to represent
 interest.....................................   2,174   2,767   3,000   4,567
                                                ------  ------  ------  ------
Fixed charges.................................   6,660  10,825  18,212  27,152
                                                ======  ======  ======  ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges............      na     2.8x    2.7x    3.2x
                                                ======  ======  ======  ======
Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges.......  (6,844)     na      na      na
                                                ======  ======  ======  ======
</TABLE>
 
                                       63
§ 751.13 Partial payments. ( a ) *Partial payments when hardship exists.* When claimants suffer a significant, compensable loss of items that are needed for daily living, and can demonstrate a need for immediate funds to replace some of those items (e.g., food, clothes, baby items, etc.) the adjudicating authority may authorize a partial payment of an appropriate amount, normally one-half of the estimated total payment. When a partial payment is made a copy of the payment voucher and all other information related to the partial payment shall be placed in the claim file. Action shall be taken to ensure the amount of the partial payment is deducted from the adjudicated value of the claim when final payment is made.
( b ) *Marine hardship payments.* The Marine claimant's Transportation Management Office shall ensure compliance with all requirements of § 751.14(a), and may request authority for payment by message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps (MRP-2).
( c ) *Effect of partial payment.* Partial payments are to be subtracted from the adjudicated value of the claim before payment of the balance due. Overpayments are to be properly recouped.
[72 FR 53424, Sept. 19, 2007]
#### William C. Gentry *v.*Warden, State Prison of Connecticut

The defendant’s motion in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County to dismiss is denied and the case is remanded to the Superior Court to permit it to entertain a request from the plaintiff to make application to have the parole board named as an additional defendant.

*661
      *Abbot B. Schwebel,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Maxwell Heiman,*special public defender, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued October 3

decided October 3, 1974
### §7939. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed grains and seed cotton

#### (a) High moisture feed grains

#### (1) Recourse loans available

For each of the 2002 through 2007 crops of corn and grain sorghum, the Secretary shall make available recourse loans, as determined by the Secretary, to producers on a farm that—

(A) normally harvest all or a portion of their crop of corn or grain sorghum in a high moisture state;

(B) present—

(i) certified scale tickets from an inspected, certified commercial scale, including a licensed warehouse, feedlot, feed mill, distillery, or other similar entity approved by the Secretary, pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary; or

(ii) field or other physical measurements of the standing or stored crop in regions of the United States, as determined by the Secretary, that do not have certified commercial scales from which certified scale tickets may be obtained within reasonable proximity of harvest operation;

(C) certify that they were the owners of the feed grain at the time of delivery to, and that the quantity to be placed under loan under this subsection was in fact harvested on the farm and delivered to, a feedlot, feed mill, or commercial or on-farm high-moisture storage facility, or to a facility maintained by the users of corn and grain sorghum in a high moisture state; and

(D) comply with deadlines established by the Secretary for harvesting the corn or grain sorghum and submit applications for loans under this subsection within deadlines established by the Secretary.

#### (2) Eligibility of acquired feed grains

A loan under this subsection shall be made on a quantity of corn or grain sorghum of the same crop acquired by the producer equivalent to a quantity determined by multiplying—

(A) the acreage of the corn or grain sorghum in a high moisture state harvested on the producer's farm; by

(B) the lower of the farm program payment yield used to make counter-cyclical payments under subchapter I or the actual yield on a field, as determined by the Secretary, that is similar to the field from which the corn or grain sorghum was obtained.

#### (3) High moisture state defined

In this subsection, the term "high moisture state" means corn or grain sorghum having a moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans made by the Secretary under section 7931 of this title.

#### (b) Recourse loans available for seed cotton

For each of the 2002 through 2007 crops of upland cotton and extra long staple cotton, the Secretary shall make available recourse seed cotton loans, as determined by the Secretary, on any production.

#### (c) Repayment rates

Repayment of a recourse loan made under this section shall be at the loan rate established for the commodity by the Secretary, plus interest (determined in accordance with section 7283 of this title).

#### (d) Termination of superseded loan authority

Notwithstanding section 7237 of this title, recourse loans shall not be made for the 2002 crop of corn, grain sorghum, and seed cotton under such section.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1209, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 165.)
#### 1201.301-72 Transportation Acquisition Circular numbering.

Transportation Acquisition Circulars (TACs) will be numbered consecutively on a fiscal year basis beginning with number “01” prefixed by the last two digits of the fiscal year (*e.g.,* TACs 21-01 and 21-02 indicate the first two TACs issued in fiscal year 2021).
### §91. Short title

For convenience of reference, this chapter may be designated and cited as "The Naval Stores Act."

(Mar. 3, 1923, ch. 217, §1, 42 Stat. 1435.)

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

#### Effective Date

Act Mar. 3, 1923, ch. 217, §10, 42 Stat. 1437, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] shall become effective at the expiration of ninety days next after the date of its approval [Mar. 23, 1923]."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
All amounts in thousands of dollars.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000032379
<NAME>                        Elizabethtown Water Company & Subsidiary

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      652,521
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      7,409
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          49,867
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        35,250
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 745,147
<COMMON>                                        15,741
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      143,720
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             62,348
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 221,809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           231,978
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              56,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       12,787
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      567
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 209,406
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  745,047
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       31,743
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,655
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      22,252
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      23,907
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          7,836
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 251
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   8,087
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,693
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,394
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        203
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,191
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         4,473
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,776
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           3,018
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38363

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GABRIEL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 754

Filed: December 21, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with 

minimum periods of confinement of seven and one-half years, for aggravated 

battery and attempted strangulation, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Gabriel Flores was convicted of aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(b), 18-907(a), 

and attempted strangulation, I.C. § 18-923. The district court sentenced Flores to concurrent

unified sentences of fifteen years, with minimum periods of confinement of seven and one-half 

years. Flores appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Flores’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
#### Wally T. McNab, Respondent, v Wilson Machine Division of Wilson Engineering, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The sole question presented in the appeal of this personal injury action is whether the Statute of Limitations was tolled by the delivery of a summons to the Sheriff of Erie County in March, 1975, four days before the period of limitations expired, and service on the defendant corporation in Michigan thereafter. CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5) as it read in 1975 provided that a claim was interposed, for purposes of tolling the statute, when a summons was delivered to the Sheriff in a county in which the defendant resided, was *1020employed or was doing business, "or, where the defendant is a corporation, in a county in which it may be served”. Special Term held that defendant was amenable to process in Erie County because its salesman, one Goldsmith, resided there and he maintained his telephone in the defendant’s name in the telephone book. The court therefore held that the corporation was "doing business” in Erie County and that the subsequent service in Michigan on a person authorized to receive service on behalf of the corporation conferred jurisdiction on the court (see CPLR 311). Defendant maintains that inasmuch as there was no person capable of receiving service on behalf of the corporation in Erie County the Statute of Limitations was not tolled by delivery of a summons to the Sheriff. Upon the record, Mr. Goldsmith was the only available person in Erie County and he was not a person capable of receiving service upon the corporation under the provisions of CPLR 311. That being so, the delivery of the summons did not toll the Statute of Limitations (see McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, § 203, C203:7, pp 117-118). The statute as amended September 1, 1977 now permits delivery to the Sheriff of a county "where the cause of action arose” but that provision may not be applied retroactively to revive plaintiff’s cause of action. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—dismiss complaint.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.
#### 1401.7001 Review and approval of contract actions.
Second Department,

October, 1960

(October 3, 1960)

#### Rudolph Bunt, Respondent, v. Hofstra College, Appellant.

Motion for a stay pending appeal dismissed as academic, in view of the decision on the appeal in *Bunt*v. *Bofstra College*(11 A D 2d 1026). Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 23, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 23, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0243. GLENN BRADLEY MAFFETT v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: ST14CR2126
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00228-CV

ULLJA KUNTZE,

Appellant

v.

SANDRA COWAN,

Appellee

From the 335th District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26,129

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Appellant Ullja Kuntze’s Motion for Sanctions, filed on July 28, 2017, is denied

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed January 3, 2018
#### § 855.4 Scope.

Air Force airfields are available for use by civil aircraft so far as such use does not interfere with military operations or jeopardize the military utility of the installation. Access will be granted on an equitable basis. Air Force requirements take precedence over authorized civil aircraft use. This part carries the force of US law, and exceptions are not authorized without prior approval from the Civil Aviation Branch, Bases and Units Division, Directorate of Operations, (HQ USAF/XOOBC), 1480 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1480. Proposed exceptions or waivers are evaluated as to current and future impact on Air Force policy and operations.
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 of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Nonhuman Primate Reagent Resource (U24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         February 8, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tara Capece, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-191-4281,                         *capecet2@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 8, 2021.

Tyeshia M. Roberson,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00649 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P