alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, etc., Petitioner, v. Paula F. HAWKINS, etc., et al., Respondents. CITY OF MIAMI, etc., Petitioner, v. Paula F. HAWKINS, etc., et al., Respondents.

Nos. 55496, 55521.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 18, 1979.

*682Shepard King, Joseph P. Klock, Jr. and Gerry S. Gibson of Steel, Hector & Davis; and George F. Knox, Jr., City Atty. and Robert D. Klausner, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for petitioners.

Prentice P. Pruitt and Donald R. Alexander, Tallahassee, for respondents.

Jack Shreve, Public Counsel and William S. Bilenky, Associate Public Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Citizens of the State of Florida, intervenor.

John W. McWhirter, Jr. of the Law Offices of John W. McWhirter, Jr., Tampa, for Florida Industrial Power Users Group, in-tervenor.

HATCHETT, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Public Service Commission which requires Florida Power & Light Company to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees from its customers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We deny the petition for certiorari.

The direct method ordered by the Commission requires Florida Power & Light Company to collect its franchise fee expense only from resident-customers of municipalities receiving franchise fees from the company, as opposed to the traditional spread method which distributes the cost of these fees among municipal and non-municipal customers. The petitioners contend that the record is devoid of substantial and competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions contained in the Commission order. (Order No. 8524.) We disagree.

After public hearings were held giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard, a hearing examiner recommended that the company be ordered to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees. After analyzing the merits of both positions, the Commission determined from the evidence that the direct method rather than the spread method was the more equitable and desirable method of cost distribution. This procedure fully complies with our directives in *City of Plant City v. Hawkins,*No. 54,972 (Fla. July 12, 1979), and *City of Plant City v. Mayo,*337 So.2d 966 (Fla.1976). *See also, City of St. Petersburg*v. *Hawkins,*366 So.2d 429 (Fla.1978).

After reviewing the record, we hold that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         696,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               696,256
<PP&E>                                     189,875,741
<DEPRECIATION>                           (189,875,741)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 696,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          696,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   696,256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Calvin WILLIAMS v. Warden Frank C. BLACKBURN.

No. 66609.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1980.

In re Calvin Williams, applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans. No. 259-071.

Denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMechanical property characterization of Borsic/aluminum laminates at room and elevated temperaturesSix Borsic/aluminum laminate orientations exposed to a braze temperature cycle were tested in tension, compression, and shear to determine tangent modulus, maximum stress and strain, and Poisson's ratio of the laminates at room and elevated temperatures. Mechanical properties in tension were determined from flat tensile and sandwich beam tests. Room temperature flat tensile tests were performed on laminates in the as-received condition to compare with specimens exposed to a braze temperature cycle. Sandwich beam tests were also used to determine mechanical properties in compression. Shear properties were determined from biaxially loaded, picture frame shear specimens. Results are presented by using functional relations between stress and strain and tangent modulus and strain, and in tables by indicating maximum stress and strain and Poisson's ratio.Document ID19810007614Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsMcwithey, R. R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Royster, D. M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberL-13763NASA-TP-1761Accession Number81N16130Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810007614.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
----

|                                                 |   |                        |   |                                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Subsidiaries                                         |   | JurisdictionofIncorporation |   | ApproximatePercentage      ofVoting      SecuritiesOwned |   |
|                                                 |   |                        |   |                                                     |   |
| Britton      & Koontz Bank, National Association |   | United      States          |   | 100%                                                     |   |
|                                                 |   |                        |   |                                                     |   |
| B&K      Title Insurance Agency, Inc.            |   | Mississippi                 |   | 100%                                                     |   |
|                                                 |   |                        |   |                                                     |   |
| Britton      & Koontz Statutory Trust # 1        |   | Mississippi                 |   | 100%                                                     |   |
§ 424.34 Additional requirements: Beneficiary's claim for direct payment. ( a ) *Basic rule.* A beneficiary's claim for direct payment for services furnished by a supplier, or by a nonparticipating hospital that has not elected to claim payment for emergency services, must include an itemized bill or a “report of services”, as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Itemized bill from the hospital or supplier.* The itemized bill for the services, which may be receipted or unpaid, must include all of the following information: ( 1 ) The name and address of— ( i ) The beneficiary;
( ii ) The supplier or nonparticipating hospital that furnished the services; and
( iii ) The physician who prescribed the services if they were furnished by a supplier other than the physician.
( 2 ) The place where each service was furnished, e.g., home, office, independent laboratory, hospital.
( 3 ) The date each service was furnished.
( 4 ) A listing of the services in sufficient detail to permit determination of payment under the fee schedule for physicians' services; for itemized bills from physicians, appropriate diagnostic coding using ICD-9-CM must be used.
( 5 ) The charges for each service.
( c ) *Report of services furnished by a supplier.* For Medicare Part B services furnished by a supplier, the beneficiary claims may include the “Report of Services” portion of the appropriate claims form, completed by the supplier in accordance with CMS instructions, in lieu of an itemized bill.
[53 FR 6634, Mar. 2, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 10299, Mar. 4, 1994; 59 FR 26740, May 24, 1994]
#### Anthony Joseph VACCARO, III v. Virginia Rose Waltz VACCARO.

No. 10807.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1979.

John M. Coman, Jr., New Orleans, for Anthony Joseph Vaccaro, III, plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Louis G. Gruntz, Jr., Jefferson, for Mrs. Virginia Vaccaro, defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOU-TALL, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

This appeal is by a mother from an award of custody of the two minor children to their father, pendente lite ancillary to a separation proceeding. We affirm.

Anthony Joseph Vaccaro, III and his wife Virginia Rose Waltz Vaccaro separated, and he kept the physical custody of the two minor children, Anthony, age 7 and Michael, age 4. He filed suit for separation and for custody of the children. Mrs. Vaccaro filed a rule for custody pendente lite and alimony. The trial judge held that the best interest was served by awarding custody to the father, and we agree.

The evidence consists of Mrs. Vaccaro’s testimony that she is able to take care of the children, and testified that she had seen a man named Leo Trahan only occasionally and had no sexual relations with him. Opposed to this the testimony of Mr. Vaccaro and several witnesses he produced show rather overwhelmingly that Mrs. Vaccaro and Leo Trahan had been together frequently, and that she had been consistently spending the night in his apartment for some period prior to the trial. The evidence was such that the trial judge not only disbelieved Mrs. Vaccaro but felt that the testimony she gave constituted perjury. We agree with his conclusions.

Thus we are faced not only with a mother who has been living in rather open and consistent manner with someone not her husband, but coupled with her apparent false testimony given the court. On the other hand, the father is providing the family home wherein they lived, together with the care of his own mother to watch over the children while he is at work. The best interest of the children is obviously to remain with the father pending final resolution of the problems between these parties.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed.

*AFFIRMED.*

REDMANN, Judge,

concurring.

I subscribe to the opinion of the court except that I suggest the non-appealability within La.C.C.P. 2083 of a provisional custody order, *Mertens v. Mertens,*La.App. 3 Cir. 1975, 308 So.2d 508, writ refused 313 So.2d 240, and the unsuitability of slow appeal as a device to review a provisional custody order. Writ application is the appropriate path to speedy review. Considering this appeal as an application for writs I would reach the result we reach for the same reasons.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERIM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AS SUBMITTED IN
THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THAT PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000726712
<NAME> SULCUS COMPUTER CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,186,041
<SECURITIES>                                11,794,830
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,388,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,048,286
<INVENTORY>                                  3,043,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,902,344
<PP&E>                                       7,375,541
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,923,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,430,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,826,334
<BONDS>                                        144,212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    40,786,566
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,326,265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,430,847
<SALES>                                     12,623,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,969,083
<CGS>                                        5,866,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,866,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,858,111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               201,918
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,755,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,755,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,755,183)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
HomeRemarks and Releases – PEPFAR...Fact Sheets – PEPFAR

# 									Fact Sheets – PEPFAR							

Fact Sheet

The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

						Download PEPFAR Overview												[796 KB]

        - FACT SHEET: The Biden Administration’s Commitment to Global Health
        - Leveraging American Rescue Plan Act Funding to Support HIV and COVID-19 Responses
        - Latest Global Results [1 MB]
        - Population-Based Household Survey Results [389 KB]
        - PEPFAR Core Program and Policy Priorities [662 KB]
        - Guiding Principles for the Next Phase of PEPFAR [470 KB]
        - Community-Led Monitoring [388 KB]
        - Key Populations Investment Fund [642 KB]
        - Delivering Client-Centered HIV Services [474 KB]
        - Client-Centered HIV Services [474 KB]
        - Faith and Community Initiatives [359 KB]
        - DREAMS Partnership [477 KB]
        - DREAMS Core Package [373 KB]

Back to Top
No. 99-1904.

#### I&M Rail Link *v.*Northstar Navigation, Inc.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Association of American Railroads for *918leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
# C_2006144EN.01001401.xml

| 20.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4222 — EQT IV/SSP)

(2006/C 144/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4222. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4222. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3444

To amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1995 to repeal certain provisions and revise certain reporting requirements relating to payment of restructuring costs under defense

contracts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1996

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to repeal certain provisions

and revise certain reporting requirements relating to payment of restructuring costs under defense contracts.

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

3 (a) REPEAL.—Section 818 of the National Defense

4 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–

5 337; 108 Stat. 2821; 10 U.S.C. 2324 note) is amended—

6 (1) by striking out subsections (a), (b), (c), and

7 (d); and
2

•HR 3444 IH

1 (2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and

2 (g) as subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively.

3 (b) AMENDMENTS RELATING TO REPORT BY SEC4 RETARY OF DEFENSE.—Subsection (a) of section 818 of

5 such Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by

8 striking out ‘‘1995, 1996, and 1997’’ and inserting

9 in lieu thereof ‘‘1995 and 1996’’; and

10 (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting at the end

11 the following new subparagraph:

12 ‘‘(F) Actual employment data within de13 fense contractors immediately before public an14 nouncement of plans for each business combina15 tion since July 21, 1993, and layoffs subse16 quent to approval of each such business com17 bination, along with an estimate of the costs to

18 the United States resulting from the layoffs.’’.

19 (c) AMENDMENTS RELATING REPORT BY COMP20 TROLLER GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 818 of

21 such Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) is amend22 ed—

23 (1) in paragraph (2)—
3

•HR 3444 IH

1 (A) by striking out ‘‘periodically’’ and in2 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘quarterly every fiscal

3 year’’; and

4 (B) by striking out the period at the end

5 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘, in6 cluding the amount of appropriated funds obli7 gated for each business combination.’’; and

8 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking out ‘‘1997’’

9 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘1996’’.

Æ
#### NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 222; 251 U. S., 123.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in tbe court below. On appeal tbe judgment was *affirmed,*and tbe Supreme Court decided:

*Semble,*that under Rev. Stats., see. 4002, as amended, the Postmaster General may fix the sums payable to a railroad company for transporting- the mails upon the basis of weights taken immediately before the beginning of the four-year term of the contract, and that annual weighings are not required.

A railroad company which knowingly contracts and receives on this basis less than it would have received on the basis of annual weighings has no implied contract right to be paid the difference by the United States.

Prior to the act of July 28, 1916, c. 261, 39 Stat., 429, a non-land-grant railroad was not required to carry the mails; and when it voluntarily accepted and performed the service with knowledge of what the United States intended to pay, it can not claim more upon the ground that its property was taken.

Mr. Justice McReyNolds

delivered tbe opinion of tbe

Supreme Court December 8, 1919.