alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NAPLES FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. David C. TOWNSEND, Appellee.

No. 74-1394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 19, 1975.

*43Lawrence D. Martin, Naples, for appellant.

Michael R. N. McDonnell, Brown, Smith, Young & Pelham, Tallahassee, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

This is appellant’s/defendant’s second appeal, following the second trial of this cause, which was held pursuant to our remand for a new trial *(Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Townsend,*Fla.App.2d, 1973, 276 So.2d 222, cert. den. Fla. 1973, 281 So.2d 214). In the prior trial, final judgment was entered in favor of appellee/plaintiff, awarding him damages in the amount of $9,915.56. On remand, the parties stipulated to rely on the same testimony that had been offered by them in the prior trial. In due course, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of appellee and against the appellant in the amount of $9,919.56.

The material facts are set out in our prior opinion and we see no reason to recite them here. We have heard oral argument, reviewed the record and given full consideration to the applicable law set out in the briefs filed by the parties and hold that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the ruling of the trial court. It should be left undisturbed.

We, therefore, overrule our decision rendered in the prior appeal. In view of the fact that the trial court’s ruling in said case was neither contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, nor clearly erroneous, it was inappropriate for this court to have substituted its judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.

McNULTY, C. j., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3247 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3247

To redesignate the Herbert Clark Hoover Department of Commerce Building 
located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., in Washington, DC, 
             as the ``Ronald H. Brown Commerce Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1996

  Mr. Thompson (for himself, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Hilliard, and Ms. Eddie 
  Bernice Johnson of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Herbert Clark Hoover Department of Commerce Building 
located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., in Washington, DC, 
             as the ``Ronald H. Brown Commerce Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW., in Washington, DC, and known as the Herbert Clark Hoover 
Department of Commerce Building, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ronald H. Brown Commerce Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald H. Brown 
Commerce Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2006060EN.01001201.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/12

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 17 November 2005

in Case C-121/04 P: Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Competition - Cartels - Agreements between undertakings - Proof of an undertaking's participation in meetings of undertakings with an anti-competitive purpose)

(2006/C 60/24)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-121/04 P: APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 1 March 2004, by Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA)(represented by: I. Dryllerakis, E. Dryllerakis and N. Korogiannakis), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and T. Christoforou, assisted by A. Oikonomou), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 17 November 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | The Commission's cross-appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission's cross-appeal is dismissed;

| 3. | Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) shall bear 90 % of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) shall bear 90 % of the costs;

| 4. | The Commission of the European Communities shall bear 10 % of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission of the European Communities shall bear 10 % of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

1

---
SERVEDJUNE17,2011 

WOJCERSON 

HOZUBIN 

J W r TE.AK9W1 

TEl J Z7S5XS7 

•:"'\R":M£NTGF 

.'-::--ORWIC:i u,; 

•jrhT OPERATION? 

In the Matter of: 

TGI FREIGHT 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

ON. 

^i OF 

ATION 

ARiNGS 

ill JUN 15 A 10' n ^ ^gJvT 

) 

)FAA Docket No. CP10NM0012 

)DMS NO. FAA-2010-1079 

)Judge RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

STIPUIATION TO EXTEITO DE2U3LINES 

The parties, through respective counsel, hereby agree to 

extend discovery from June 3, 2011, the current deadline, to 

July 8, 2011, to accommodate depositions that could not be 

scheduled within the current deadline. Because of this, the 

parties also agree that the Procedural and Discovery Schedule 

should be modified as follows: 

Close of Discovery 

Witness Lists 

Motion Matters 

Exchange of Exhibits Intended to be 

Offered at Hearing 

Objections to Exhibits 

Pre-Hearing Brief 

7/8/11 

7/15/11 

7/18/11 

7/18/11 

7/25/11 

7/25/11 

DATED thi i= \4^ day of June, 2011. 

WILKERSON HOZUBIN 

Attorneys for TGI Freight 

By .^UJ%\ ^ 

^ 

Rebecca J. Hozubin 
y 

WILKERSON 

HOZUBIN 

IWKSII!IEBr.$MnE4W 

|NC> lB,AK«99ei 

\ m />»Mm 

DATED t h is _/ ^ day of June, 2011. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant 

By; 

Cheryl Wr-klonea 

OBDBR 

The parties' modified Joint Procedural and Discovery 

Schedule is GRANTED. 

DATED thi s /7 day of , 2011 , 

QJUSi C.G»^&^^ 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

stipulation re Deadlines 

In the Matter of TGI Freight 

Doclcet No. CP10NM0012 

Page 2 
FAA Docket No. CP10NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Rebecca J. Hozubin, Respondent's Counsel 

Wilkerson Hozubin 

310 K Street, Suite 405 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

TEL: 907-276-5297 

FAX: 907-276-5291 

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 W. 7* Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907- 271-5273 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Offiie of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

I ;i .
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3378 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 577
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H.R. 3378

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the 
  demonstration program for direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and 
                       other third party payors.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    Section 405(c)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
U.S.C. 1645(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1996'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1998''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 4, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 577

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3378

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the 
  demonstration program for direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and 
                       other third party payors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 5, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### § 598.317 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3257

To develop model curricula appropriate for elementary and secondary

students.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 16, 1996

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational

Opportunities

A BILL

To develop model curricula appropriate for elementary and

secondary students.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM.

4 Paragraph (1) of section 1 of Public Law 96–388 is

5 amended by inserting ‘‘develop model curricula appro6 priate for children in kindergarten through twelfth grade

7 that shall be made available to a school upon request,’’

8 after ‘‘holocaust’’.

Æ
#### Robert E. RATLIFF v. ROBERT E. RATLIFF COMPANY, INC. and Maryland Casualty Company.

No. 52099.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 1980.

Gene Harlow, Grenada, for appellant.

William L. Rone, Hernando, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, ORDER OF COMMISSION REINSTATED, AND RENDERED.

*1122PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur.
# C_2006124EN.01003401.xml

| 25.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/34

---

OPEN CALL FOR PROPOSALS VP/2006/014

OPEN CALL FOR PROPOSALS

2006 — European Year of Workers' Mobility

Pilot Projects

(2006/C 124/07)

The purpose of the present call for proposals is the co-funding of a limited number of pilot projects in order to:

pilot projects

| — | develop and test innovative instruments which facilitate the geographic and labour market mobility of workers and their families and remove existing obstacles to mobility; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop and test innovative instruments which facilitate the geographic and labour market mobility of workers and their families and remove existing obstacles to mobility;

| — | transfer between sectors, regions and countries or mainstream existing successful instruments and practices in the area of mobility. |
| --- | --- |

—

transfer between sectors, regions and countries or mainstream existing successful instruments and practices in the area of mobility.

All projects need to evidence a clear European added value and should be able to be reproduced in other contexts. They should involve relevant stakeholders and should have the potential to lead to new policy initiatives.

European added value

Proposals must be developed and implemented by a partnership, preferably at transnational level, and must involve at least two relevant stakeholders potentially interested in the objectives of the call (i.e. public authorities and social partner organisations, non governmental organisations, public-private partnerships, academia, municipalities, etc).

partnership

The budget available for the present call is EUR 2 million. The Commission will co-finance projects up to a maximum of 85 % of the total eligible costs. Depending on the quality of the applications the Commission expects to fund between 5 and 8 projects (average grant EUR 300 000).

budget

The deadline for the submission of applications is 17.7.2006.

deadline

.

Full information regarding the call for proposals, including the guide for applicants and all relevant documentation can be downloaded at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/emplweb/tenders/index_en.cfm

Please note that enquiries should be made by e-mail only to:

empl-e-vp/2006/014@ec.europa.eu

---
MAR 05 2012

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin EPA. REGION 111

Regional Administrator OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

1650 Arch Street (3RAOO) RECE\/ED

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 MAR 052012Dear Mr. Garvin

On April 3, 2008, Maryland officially requested EPA approval ofthe following state implementation

plan (SIP) revision:

Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Fine Particle (PM2.5)Standard and 2002 Base YearInventory for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area

The plan revision demonstrated the improvements made to the air quality in the Washington DC-MDVA Nonattainment Area (“the Area”) and the efforts taken to achieve the 1997 national ambient airquality standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5by 2009. This SIP revision for the Washington DC-MD-VA areaincluded: (i) the attainment plan; (ii) an analysis ofreasonably available control measures; (iii) an

attainment demonstration; (iv) contingency plans for failure to attain the air quality standard; (v) mobile

source budgets; and (vi) the base year 2002 air pollutant emissions inventory.

Air quality has significantly improved in the Washington DC-MD-VA area. On January 12, 2009 (74

FR 1146), EPA determined that the Area had attained the NAAQS and issued a clean data determinationfor the Area. This determination suspended the requirements for Maryland to submit attainmentdemonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans,

contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment ofthe NAAQS in the Area. The

purpose ofthis letter is to withdraw these portions ofthe April 3, 2008 submittal.

Specifically, the State of Maryland hereby withdraws: (i) the attainment plan; (ii) the analysis of

reasonably available control measures; (iii) the attainment demonstration; (iv) the contingency plans for

failure to attain the air quality standard; and (v) the mobile source budgets, all of which were submittedon April 3, 2008. To ensure that Maryland has met the requirements of Section 172(c)(3) ofthe Clean

Air Act regarding inventory submittals, the State is not requesting the withdrawal ofthe base year 2002

air pollutant emissions inventory, which comprises Chapter 3 and Appendix B ofthe original April 3,

2008 SIP submission.

• . __••_ •.

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
If you have any questions regarding these matters or require additional information, please contactMr. George (Tad) S. Abum, Jr., Director ofthe Air and Radiation Management Administration at410-537-3255, or by email, at gabummde.state.md.us.

Sincerely,

Secretary

cc: Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III

George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
#### Ron W. LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 46094.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 5, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
SYSTEMS & COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                  Year Ended September 30,
                                                ----------------------------
                                                  1996      1995      1994
                                                  ----      ----      ----
                                                  (Amounts in thousands,
                                                   except per share data)

Primary
Average shares outstanding                       14,070    13,074    12,328

Net effect of dilutive stock options-based
 on the treasury stock method using average
 market price                                       626       956     1,189
                                                -------    ------   -------

Total                                            14,696    14,030    13,517
                                                =======    ======   =======

Net income                                       $9,119    $3,058   $11,646
                                                =======    ======   =======

Net income per share                              $0.62     $0.22     $0.86
                                                =======    ======   =======


Fully Diluted
Average shares outstanding                       14,070    13,074    12,328

Net effect of dilutive stock options-based
 on the treasury stock method using the
 year-end market price, if higher than
 average market price                               626     1,325     1,190

Assumed conversion of 6 1/4% convertible
 subordinated debentures                          2,085         0     2,300
                                                -------    ------    ------
Total                                            16,781    14,399    15,818
                                                =======    ======   =======

Net income                                       $9,119    $3,058   $11,646
                                                =======    ======   =======

Add 6 1/4% convertible subordinated debenture
interest, net of federal income tax effect        1,200         0     1,521

Net income (as adjusted)                        $10,319    $3,058   $13,167
                                                =======    ======   =======

Net income (as adjusted) per share                $0.61     $0.21     $0.83
                                                =======    ======   =======
#### § 423.156 Consumer satisfaction surveys.

Part D contracts with 600 or more enrollees as of July of the prior year must contract with approved Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey vendors to conduct the Medicare CAHPS satisfaction survey of Part D plan enrollees in accordance with CMS specifications and submit the survey data to CMS. Part D sponsors are not required to submit CAHPS data that would otherwise be required for the calculation of the 2021 Star Ratings.

[75 FR 19818, Apr. 15, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 19290, Apr. 6, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7321
JERRY SELLERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MASHINSKI, Investigator; OFFICER YARINKY, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at R ichmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-361-3) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Sellers, Appellant Pro Se. James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error, evenwhen we construe the record in the light most favorable to Appellant concerning statements he allegedly made to the arresting officer. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sellers v. Mashinski , No. CA-96-361-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED