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

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 19, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________
No. 3D23

- 1423 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 32341 SP

________________



### Echcho Maria Hart

, Appellant,

vs.


### Dade County Federal Credit Union

,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Miesha S. Darrough , Judge.

Shrouder, Karns & Mager, P.A., and Larry A. Karns (Cooper City) , for appellant.

Dunn Law, P.A., and Jerrod M. Maddox , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and LOBREE , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2

Appellant has not met her burden of providing this Court with an

adequate record of the proceedings before the trial court

. See Williams v.

Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. , 271 So. 3d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“ It is well

established that the party seeking appella te review has the burden of

providing the court with an adequate record of the proceedings in the lower

tribunal. ” (quoting Kass Shuler, P.A. v. Barchard , 120 So. 3d 165, 168 (Fla.

2d DCA 2013) )). This is abundantly clear as the record on appeal contains

no transcript of the trial proceeding before the lower court

. As this Court

recently held in Williams :

“An appellate court cannot reverse a decision in the absence of a sufficient record.” [ Kass Shuler

, 120 So. 3d at 168 ] (emphasis omitted). This is bec ause “[w]ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can [not] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court ’ s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” Applegate v. Ba rnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Thus, “when no transcript is provided, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous will be affirmed.” Arnold v. Whitley, Jr. , 97 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

271 So. 3d at 83 (alternations in original) ( f ootnote omitted).

“The most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court ’ s

decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”

Esaw v. Esaw , 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In deed, an3

appellant’s failure to provide a proper record to the reviewing court “ is

‘ usually fatal ’ to the appellant's claims.” Id. at 1264

- 65 (quoting Casella v.

Casella , 569 So

. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))

. “Without such a record,

it will ordinaril y be impossible for the appellant to establish that an asserted

error is harmful.” Id. at 12 65. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3650 Shoulder joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A shoulder joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a shoulder joint. The device limits minimally (less than normal anatomic constraints) translation in one or more planes. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a humeral component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a glenoid resurfacing component made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) FDA's: ( i ) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ”
( ii ) “510(k) Sterility Review Guidance of 2/12/90 (K90-1),”
( iii ) “Guidance Document for Testing Orthopedic Implants with Modified Metallic Surfaces Apposing Bone or Bone Cement,”
( iv ) “Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notification (510(k)) Application for Orthopedic Devices,” and
( v ) “Guidance Document for Testing Non-articulating, ‘Mechanically Locked’ Modular Implant Components,”
( 2 ) International Organization for Standardization's (ISO): ( i ) ISO 5832-3:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 3: Wrought Titanium 6-Aluminum 4-Vandium Alloy,”
( ii ) ISO 5832-4:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 4: Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Casting Alloy,”
( iii ) ISO 5832-12:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 12: Wrought Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy,”
( iv ) ISO 5833:1992 “Implants for Surgery—Acrylic Resin Cements,”
( v ) ISO 5834-2:1998 “Implants for Surgery—Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene—Part 2: Moulded Forms,”
( vi ) ISO 6018:1987 “Orthopaedic Implants—General Requirements for Marking, Packaging, and Labeling,” and
( vii ) ISO 9001:1994 “Quality Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing,” and
( 3 ) American Society for Testing and Materials': ( i ) F 75-92 “Specification for Cast Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implant Material,”
( ii ) F 648-98 “Specification for Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Powder and Fabricated Form for Surgical Implants,”
( iii ) F 799-96 “Specification for Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy Forgings for Surgical Implants,”
( iv ) F 1044-95 “Test Method for Shear Testing of Porous Metal Coatings,”
( v ) F 1108-97 “Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium Alloy Castings for Surgical Implants,”
( vi ) F 1147-95 “Test Method for Tension Testing of Porous Metal Coatings,”
( vii ) F 1378-97 “Specification for Shoulder Prosthesis,” and
( viii ) F 1537-94 “Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implants.”
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 17148, Mar. 31, 2000]
#### § 1.183-4 Taxable years affected.

The provisions of section 183 and the regulations thereunder shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969. For provisions applicable to prior taxable years, see section 270 and § 1.270-1.

[T.D. 7198, 37 FR 13685, July 13, 1972]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 80 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 80

 To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a 
              major non-NATO ally, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a 
              major non-NATO ally, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 
              PAKISTAN AS A MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY.

    (a) In General.--Effective beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act--
            (1) the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as 
        a major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(a)(1)) or any 
        other provision of law is hereby terminated; and
            (2) the President may not issue a separate designation of 
        the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally 
        pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of such Act or any other 
        provision of law unless the President submits to Congress a 
        certification described in subsection (b).
    (b) Certification.--A certification described in this subsection is 
a certification that contains a determination of the President that--
            (1) Pakistan continues to conduct military operations that 
        are contributing to significantly disrupting the safe haven and 
        freedom of movement of the Haqqani Network in Pakistan;
            (2) Pakistan has taken steps to demonstrate its commitment 
        to prevent the Haqqani Network from using any Pakistani 
        territory as a safe haven;
            (3) the Government of Pakistan actively coordinates with 
        the Government of Afghanistan to restrict the movement of 
        militants, such as the Haqqani Network, along the Afghanistan-
        Pakistan border; and
            (4) Pakistan has shown progress in arresting and 
        prosecuting Haqqani Network senior leaders and mid-level 
        operatives.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.1368-0 Table of contents.

The following table of contents is provided to facilitate the use of §§ 1.1368-1 through 1.1368-4.

## § 1.1368-1 Distributions by S corporations.

(a) In general.

(b) Date distribution made.

(c) S corporation with no earnings and profits.

(d) S corporation with earnings and profits.

(1) General treatment of distribution.

(2) Previously taxed income.

(e) Certain adjustments taken into account.

(1) Taxable years beginning before January 1, 1997.

(2) Taxable years beginning on or after August 18, 1998.

(f) Elections relating to source of distributions.

(1) In general.

(2) Election to distribute earnings and profits first.

(i) In general.

(ii) Previously taxed income.

(iii) Corporation with subchapter C and subchapter S earnings and profits.

(3) Election to make a deemed dividend.

(4) Election to forego previously taxed income.

(5) Time and manner of making elections.

(i) For earnings and profits.

(ii) For previously taxed income and deemed dividends.

(iii) Corporate statement regarding elections.

(iv) Irrevocable elections.

(g) Special rule.

(1) Election to terminate year under § 1.1368-1(g)(2).

(2) Election in case of a qualifying disposition.

(i) In general.

(ii) Effect of the election.

(iii) Time and manner of making election.

(iv) Coordination with election under section 1377(a)(2).

## § 1.1368-2 Accumulated adjustments account (AAA).

(a) Accumulated adjustments account.

(1) In general.

(2) Increases to the AAA.

(3) Decreases to the AAA.

(i) In general.

(ii) Extent of allowable reduction.

(iii) Decrease to the AAA for distributions.

(4) Ordering rules for the AAA for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1997.

(5) Ordering rules for the AAA for taxable years beginning on or after August 18, 1998.

(b) Distributions in excess of the AAA.

(1) In general.

(2) Amount of the AAA allocated to each distribution.

(c) Distribution of money and loss property.

(1) In general.

(2) Allocating the AAA to loss property.

(d) Adjustment in the case of redemptions, liquidations, reorganizations, and divisions.

(1) Redemptions.

(i) General rule.

(ii) Special rule for years in which a corporation makes both ordinary and redemption distributions.

(iii) Adjustments to earnings and profits.

(2) Liquidations and reorganizations.

(3) Corporate separations to which section 368(a)(1)(D) applies.

(e) Election to terminate year under section 1377(a)(2) or § 1.1368-1(g)(2).

## § 1.1368-3 Examples.

## § 1.1368-4 Effective date and transition rule.

[T.D. 8508, 59 FR 18, Jan. 3, 1994, as amended by T.D. 8696, 61 FR 67455, Dec. 23, 1996; T.D. 8852, 64 FR 71649, Dec. 22, 1999; T.D. 8869, 65 FR 3855, Jan. 25, 2000]
Exhibit 4.5


                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                      SCOTTISH HOLDINGS STATUTORY TRUST II

          THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Scottish Holdings Statutory Trust II (the
"Trust"), dated as of April 11, 2003, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss. 3801, et seq.).

          (i) Name. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is
Scottish Holdings Statutory Trust II.

          (ii) Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the Trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is The
Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, DE 19714.

          (iii) Counterparts. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one
or more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

          (iv) Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as
of its filing.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.

                                       The Bank of New York (Delaware),
                                       as Trustee


                                       By: /s/ Michael Santino
                                           Name:   Michael Santino
                                           Title:  Senior Vice President


                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Paul Goldean,
                                       as Trustee
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3140 Resin applicator. ( a ) *Identification.* A resin applicator is a brushlike device intended for use in spreading dental resin on a tooth during application of tooth shade material.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, the device is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exceptions of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 13830, Apr. 5, 1989; 66 FR 38797, July 25, 2001]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8087 

To reauthorize funding for the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling 

Grant Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2024 

Mr. ESPAILLAT (for himself, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. CARSON, Mr. SABLAN, Mrs. RAMIREZ, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To reauthorize funding for the Solid Waste Infrastructure 

for Recycling Grant Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Solid Waste Infra5 structure for Recycling Grant Program Reauthorization 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8087 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF SOLID WASTE INFRASTRUC2 TURE FOR RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 302(g)(1) of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (33 

4 U.S.C. 4282(g)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

5 $65,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035’’ 

6 after ‘‘fiscal years 2021 through 2025’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 1.175-1 Soil and water conservation expenditures; in general.

Under section 175, a farmer may deduct his soil or water conservation expenditures which do not give rise to a deduction for depreciation and which are not otherwise deductible. The amount of the deduction is limited annually to 25 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from farming. Any excess may be carried over and deducted in succeeding taxable years. As a general rule, once a farmer has adopted this method of treating soil and water conservation expenditures, he must deduct all such expenditures (subject to the 25-percent limitation) for the current and subsequent taxable years. If a farmer does not adopt this method, such expenditures increase the basis of the property to which they relate.
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3850 Sulfonamide test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A sulfonamide test system is a device intended to measure sulfonamides, any of the antibacterial drugs derived from sulfanilamide, in human specimens. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of sulfonamide overdose and in monitoring sulfonamide levels to ensure appropriate therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 21450, June 8, 1988; 65 FR 2310, Jan. 14, 2000]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0646 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-224-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# C_2016222EN.01001902.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/19

---

Order of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — EGBA and RGA v Commission

(Case T-238/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Gambling and betting - Aid envisaged by France for horse-racing companies - Parafiscal levy collected on online horse-race betting - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Association - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 222/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S.-P. Brankin, Solicitor, T. De Meese, E. Wijckmans and M. Mudrony, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/19/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse-racing companies (OJ 2014 L 14, p. 17).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The French Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
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.

Dated: November 13, 2002                    By: /S/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                               -------------------------------
                                                        Carmine T. Oliva
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
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.

Dated: November 13, 2002                    By: /S/ RANDOLPH D. FOOTE
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                        Randolph D. Foote
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50447 Summary Calendar

__________________ LESLIE RAY FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JACK M. GARNER, Warden; JAMES EASLEY, Sgt.; FLETCHER SMITH, Co.3; BRENDA BRETEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-93-CV-115
- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leslie Ray Foster requests leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the district court's denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Because Foster's appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue, his motion for IFP is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.