alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KENNETH RICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv387-MW/HTC

MARK INCH, SECRETARY OF THE

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 17. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice for maliciousness and abuse of judicial process.” The Clerk shall 

close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 25, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00387-MW-HTC Document 18 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vanessa Oliver, Also Known as Viki Oliver, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered May 7, 1975, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to a prison term of from two years to life. Judgment affirmed, without prejudice to an application to the County Court, Dutchess County, for a reduction of the sentence in accordance with section 60.09 of the Penal Law (see *People v Rivera,*72 AD2d 610). We have considered the other points raised by the defendant and have found them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
~A'"2.010- ()O,! J

9. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 1hJtJ1 ---

Regional Airline Association Daw Lot!(>rer 1ho/dJ -

Aircruft Owners & Pilots Association Rober! H3ckman 0/1)0 tf( ~

ATA Craig Fabian 1h~'I'l1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2614 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to provide the President with the authority to exempt civilian Department 

of Defense personnel accounts from sequestration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2013 

Mr. BARROW of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide the President with the authority to exempt civilian Department of Defense personnel accounts from sequestration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EXEMPTION OF CIVILIAN DEPART4 MENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL WHO HAVE 

5 SERVED IN THE UNIFORM SERVICES. 

6 Section 255(f) of the Balanced Budget and Emer7 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2614 IH

1 (1) in the side heading by inserting before the 

2 period at the end ‘‘AND CERTAIN CIVILIAN PER3 SONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the 

5 following new sentence: ‘‘The President may also, 

6 with respect to civilian employees of the Department 

7 of Defense who served in the Armed Forces on or 

8 after August 2, 2011, exempt that portion of the 

9 personnel account covering them from sequestration 

10 or provide for a lower uniform percentage reduction 

11 than would otherwise apply.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Winifred Burke, Appellant, v Desmond Burke, Respondent.

In an action for divorce, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 29, 1980, as denied her a judgment of divorce, custody and support of the three minor children of the marriage, alimony and exclusive possession of the marital domicile, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint “on the entire case.” Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Trial Term correctly determined that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her allegations of defendant’s cruel and inhuman treatment (see *Underwood u Underwood,*55 AD2d 1016). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.585 Voluntary decrease in RBIC's Regulatory Capital.

You must obtain the Agency's prior written approval to reduce your Regulatory Capital by more than two percent in any fiscal year. At all times, you must retain sufficient Regulatory Capital to meet the minimum capital requirements in the Act and § 4290.210, and sufficient Leverageable Capital to avoid having excess Leverage in violation of section 384E(d) of the Act.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010 of
Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Sputnik
      Enterprises, Inc.Dated:  December
      7, 2010
              By:
              /s/ David LaDukeDavid
      LaDukeChief
      Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and
will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of KCAP Financial, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report), I, Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 31, 2015

          

          By:/s/ Dayl W. PearsonDayl W. Pearson President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MCI WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation; MCIMETRO

ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC,

a Delaware corporation, and intervenor

FLORIDA DIGITAL NETWORK, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cv492-SPM

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNCATIONS, INC.,

a Georgia corporation; the FLORIDA PUBLIC 

SERVICE COMMISSION; E. LEON JACOBS,

JR., in his official capacity as Chairman of the

Florida Public Service Commission; and J.

TERRY DEASON, LILA A. JABER, BRAULIO 

L. BAEZ and MICHAEL A. PALECKI, in their 

official capacities as Commissioners of the 

Florida Public Service Commission,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss of Intervenor Florida Digital

Network, Inc. (doc. 111) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (doc. 112)

filed by Plaintiffs MCI WORLDCOM Communications, Inc. and MCImetro Access

Transmission Services LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)

Case 4:01-cv-00492-SPM-AK Document 113 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
and without objection from Defendants, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motions (docs. 111 and 112) are granted. 

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

3. Each party shall bear its own costs. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-00492-SPM-AK Document 113 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,608
<SECURITIES>                                     3,563
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,874
<INVENTORY>                                      1,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,335
<PP&E>                                          11,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,841
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,293
<SALES>                                         34,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,888
<CGS>                                           10,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     17
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 11
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### Underground Construction Company, appellant, v. The Sanitary District of Chicago, appellee.

Gen. No. 37,461.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 19, 1934.

John L. Melnerney and Luella M. Either, for appellant. William Rothmann, La.wrenee J. Fenlon and Thomas F. Donovan, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF FINANCIAL POSITION, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND UNASSIGNED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     1,184,999,415
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                 119,975,332
<MORTGAGE>                                 308,346,777
<REAL-ESTATE>                               39,537,775
<TOTAL-INVEST>                           1,652,859,299
<CASH>                                       6,975,899
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           7,040,216
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           7,618,869,924
<POLICY-LOSSES>                          1,526,996,337
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       25,448,497
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             46,135,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 322,317,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             7,618,869,924
<PREMIUMS>                                 772,573,725
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         57,901,893
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           (842,221)
<OTHER-INCOME>                             255,444,778
<BENEFITS>                                 941,115,944
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,440,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,990,968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,449,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cr47-RH/WCS

HOWARD WARREN SILVER,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

TERMINATE SUPERVISED RELEASE

Defendant Howard Silver’s motion filed October 21, 2005 (document 120),

by which he challenges his conviction and sentence, is in substance an

unauthorized second motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255. Even if deemed a

motion for early termination of supervised release, the motion would remain

unfounded; as a matter of discretion, I would not terminate Mr. Silver’s term of

supervised release. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant’s motion filed October 21, 2005, challenging his conviction and

sentence or seeking early termination of supervised release is DENIED. The clerk 

Case 4:03-cr-00047-RH-WCS Document 121 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:03cr47-RH/WCS

shall enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cr-00047-RH-WCS Document 121 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
10.1
 WAIVER, CONSENT, PARTIAL RELEASE
AND SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT
AND LOAN DOCUMENTS
 Agreement Parent Alon LP Borrower Borrowers Guarantor Company Guarantor Companies Agent Bank Leumi
 W I T N E S S E T H
 Lender Lenders Credit Agreement
 inter alia
 Bakersfield
Holdings Bakersfield Assets Bakersfield
Operating Bakersfield Logistics Released Parties




---



##### 



Bakersfield Refinery
Assets Bakersfield Loan Documents
    Definitions
 Amendments to Credit Agreement
 Deletion of Existing Definition
 New Definitions
 Alon Brands
 Bakersfield Assets
 Bakersfield Holdings
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Bakersfield Logistics
 Bakersfield Operating
 Bakersfield Subsidiaries
 Amendment and Restatement of Existing Definitions
 Excluded Subsidiaries
 Fixed
Assets and Other Specified Property
 References to the term Alon Interests
 Representations and Warranties; Subsidiaries
 Affirmative Covenants; Subsidiaries, Etc
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Amendments to the Pledge Agreement and Security Agreement
     Waiver, Consent and Release
   Releases of Security Interests and Liens
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties
    Schedule A
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Conditions to Effectiveness Agreement Effective Date
 Reservation of Rights
 Continued Effectiveness of Loan Documents
 Loan Parties; Borrowing Base; Intercreditor Agreement
      - 6 -




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
   This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the
State of New York.
   - 7 -




---



##### 



Borrower:ALON USA, LPBy:
    
    Alon USA GP, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ Shai EvenName:
    
    Shai EvenTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



Guarantor Companies:ALON USA OPERATING, INC
ALON USA REFINING, INC.
ALON USA, INC.
ALON USA ENERGY, INC.
ALON PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS, INC.
ALON USA GP, LLC
ALON ASSETS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Shai EvenName:
    
    Shai EvenTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
OfficerALON USA CAPITAL, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Harlin DeanName:
    
    Harlin DeanTitle:
    
    Vice President and SecretaryALON CRUDE PIPELINE, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Shai EvenName:
    
    Shai EvenTitle:
    
    Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerALON BRANDS, INC.
ALON USA DELAWARE, LLC
ALON PIPELINE LOGISTICS, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Shai EvenName:
    
    Shai EvenTitle:
    
    Vice President
 
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Agent and Lender:ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK OF NEW YORKBy:
    
    /s/ Amir BarashName:
    
    Amir BarashTitle:
    
    SVPBy:
    
    /s/ Zalutki HaiName:
    
    Zalutki HaiTitle:
    
    AVP
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Lender and Co-arranger:BANK LEUMI USABy:
    
    /s/ Michaela KleinName:
    
    Michaela KleinTitle:
    
    SVPBy:
    
    /s/ Noam KatzName:
    
    Noam KatzTitle:
    
    BO
 - 4 -
### No. 0 3-14- 00 737 -CV


## In the **Third Court of Appeals**  **Austin , Texas** 

**__________ __________________**  **________**

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER Appellant

, v. DAVID MATTAX AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE Appellees

.

____________________________________________ On Appeal from the 250th Judicial District Court Cause No. D-1-GN-13-001957 Travis County, Texas

____________________________________________

APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD

____________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

David Mattax and the Texas Department of Insurance, (“Appell ees” ), hereby file

their Response to Appellant’s Oppos ition to Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s

Emergency Motion for Clarification of the Record.

I.

In Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Emergency

Motion for Clarification of the Record, Appellant clarifies that the relief that she seeks in

Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Clarification of the Record is a copy of the appellate

record for her review. Appellees agree that Appellant, who is acting as her own attorney, ACCEPTED 03-14-00737-CV 7610382 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/30/2015 8:35:29 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 is entitled , upon request to this Court, to a copy of the appellate record . Appellants have no

objection to this Court providing Appellan t an electronic copy of the appellate record at no

cost, as provided by the local practices of this Court. 1

Re spectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON Attorney G eneral of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. DAVIS Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

LESLI G. GINN Division Chief Financial Litigation and Charitable Trusts Division

/s/ Cynthia A. Morales Cynthia A. Morales Assistant Attorney General Texas State Bar No. 14417420 Financial Litigation and Charitable Trusts Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711

- 2548 (512) 475

- 4470 Phone (512) 477

- 2348 Fax cynthia.morales@texasattorneygeneral.gov Counsel for Appellees

1 See http://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa/practice

- before

- the

- court.aspx#checking

- out

- record (No. 43)



### .3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 30 , 2015 , th e above and foregoing Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Objection to Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Clarification of the Record was filed and served via e

- service on:

Chase Carmen Hunter 340 S. Lemon Avenue #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 chase_hunter@yahoo.com

/s/ Cynthia A. Morales Cynthia A. Morales Assistant Attorney General
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsReal-time processing of radar return on a parallel computerNASA is working with the FAA to demonstrate the feasibility of pulse Doppler radar as a candidate airborne sensor to detect low altitude windshears. The need to provide the pilot with timely information about possible hazards has motivated a demand for real-time processing of a radar return. Investigated here is parallel processing as a means of accommodating the high data rates required. A PC based parallel computer, called the transputer, is used to investigate issues in real time concurrent processing of radar signals. A transputer network is made up of an array of single instruction stream processors that can be networked in a variety of ways. They are easily reconfigured and software development is largely independent of the particular network topology. The performance of the transputer is evaluated in light of the computational requirements. A number of algorithms have been implemented on the transputers in OCCAM, a language specially designed for parallel processing. These include signal processing algorithms such as the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), pulse-pair, and autoregressive modelling, as well as routing software to support concurrency. The most computationally intensive task is estimating the spectrum. Two approaches have been taken on this problem, the first and most conventional of which is to use the FFT. By using table look-ups for the basis function and other optimizing techniques, an algorithm has been developed that is sufficient for real time. The other approach is to model the signal as an autoregressive process and estimate the spectrum based on the model coefficients. This technique is attractive because it does not suffer from the spectral leakage problem inherent in the FFT. Benchmark tests indicate that autoregressive modeling is feasible in real time.Document ID19920023362Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAalfs, David D.*(Clemson Univ. SC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1992Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:4456DOT/FAA/RD-92/20CU-TR-14NASA-CR-4456Accession Number92N32606Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT-50414PROJECT: RTOP 505-64-12-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920023362.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
2006-0286.

#### In re Thompkins.

Montgomery App. No. 20489, 2005-Ohio-7073.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.