alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v SCHILBERG

Case No. 58614-IB (Traffic Division)

County Court, Dade County

November 6, 1987

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEVE LEVINE, County Judge.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON FLORIDA STATUTE, SECTION 316.650(3)

The Defendant is charged by Uniform Traffic Citation with a violation of Florida Statutes, Chapter 316. The Defendant has asked the Court to dismiss the citation because the original and one copy of the citation were not filed with the court within five days of the issuance of the citation to the alleged violator, as required by Florida Statutes, Section 316.650(3).

The Court finds that dismissal is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 316.650, in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice to the Defendant resulting from such a violation. Florida Statutes, Section 316.655, provides that a violation of *any*provision of Chapter 316, except those criminal offenses specifically enumerated, is deemed an infraction, punishable as provided in Chapter 318. Thus, a *57traffic enforcement officer who fails to file the uniform traffic citation within five days from the date it was issued may be cited for a violation of Section 316.650(3). If found guilty, the officer may be subjected to the civil penalties enumerated in Section 316.655 or 318.18. Dismissal of the original uniform traffic citation is not an authorized sanction. *See*Attorney General Opinion 78-139 (addressing violations of Section 316.650(4).

Further, the filing of the citation with the Court within the five days is a ministerial act, not requiring the exercise of discretion. *City of Coral Gables v. State,*44 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1950). The failure to comply with the ministerial act of filing the traffic citation within five days does not void the citation, unless actual prejudice is shown. *See Nofs v. State,*295 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). No prejudice has been demonstrated in the case *sub judice.*

Finally, the uniform traffic citation is not the only charging document that may be utilized to commence proceedings for violations of Chapter 316. Florida Rules for Traffic Court 6.320 allows the use of an affidavit. Yet, there is no requirement that an affidavit be filed with the Court within five days of its issuance to the alleged violator. It would not make sense to interpret Section 316.650(3) as a jurisdictional limitation on traffic prosecutions when the state could still proceed with an alternative charging document. Such an interpretation would impose a statute of limitations or speedy file rule which was totally dependent on the means used to charge the offense. The Court does not believe that was the intent of the legislature in enacting Section 316.650(3).

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in this cause.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of November, 1987.
[No. 49969-6-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Print Gant, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-08929-0, Michael Hayden, J., entered February 1, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry McKinzey, CFO of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  November 15, 2010


Sherry McKinzey


CFO


/s/ Sherry McKinzey
#### § 415.133 Safety at end of launch.

An applicant must demonstrate compliance with § 417.129 of this chapter, for any proposed launch of a launch vehicle with a stage or component that will reach Earth orbit.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 839 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude amounts received 

as a military basic housing allowance from consideration as income 

for purposes of the low-income housing credit and qualified residential 

rental projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

amounts received as a military basic housing allowance 

from consideration as income for purposes of the lowincome housing credit and qualified residential rental 

projects. 

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 ‘‘Military Access to 

5 Housing Act of 2007’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 839 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM INCOME 

2 FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CER3 TAIN HOUSING PROVISIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of 142(d)(2)(B) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income 

6 of individuals; area median gross income) is amended to 

7 read as follows ‘‘For purposes of determining income 

8 under this subparagraph, subsections (g) and (h) of sec9 tion 7872 shall not apply and any payments to a member 

10 of the Armed Forces under section 403 of title 37, United 

11 States Code, as a basic pay allowance for housing, shall 

12 be disregarded.’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall take effect with respect to determinations 

15 made after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### § 39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has been changed?

Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive.
#### § 1602.55 Applicability of State or local law.

The requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in these regulations, subparts O, P, and Q of this part, supersede any provisions of State or local law which may conflict with them.

[40 FR 25189, June 12, 1975]
#### § 102.21 Where to file; service upon the parties; form.

An original and four copies of the answer shall be filed with the Regional Director issuing the complaint. Immediately upon the filing of the answer, Respondent shall serve a copy thereof on the other parties. An answer of a party represented by counsel or non-attorney representative shall be signed by at least one such attorney or non-attorney representative of record in his/her individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative shall sign his/her answer and state his/her address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, an answer need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of the attorney or non-attorney party representative constitutes a certificate by him/her that he/she has read the answer; that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If an answer is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it may be stricken as sham and false and the action may proceed as though the answer had not been served. For a willful violation of this section an attorney or non-attorney party representative may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted.

[82 FR 11754, Feb. 24, 2017, as amended at 82 FR 43697, Sept. 19, 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0220 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0220

**98/220/EC: Commission Decision of 4 March 1998 amending Decision 97/569/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 082 , 19/03/1998 P. 0047 - 0048 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 4 March 1998 amending Decision 97/569/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (98/220/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs (1), as last amended by Council Decision 97/34/EC (2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas provisional lists of establishments in third countries producing meat products have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/569/EC (3) as last amended by Commission Decision 98/163/EC (4);

Whereas Chile, Croatia and Slovakia have sent a list of establishments producing poultry meat products and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishment is in accordance with the Community rules;

Whereas a provisional list of establishments producing poultry meat products can thus be drawn up for Chile, Croatia and Slovakia; whereas Decision 97/569/EC should therefore be amended accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex of Decision 97/569/EC.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 20 February 1998.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 March 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 33.

(3) OJ L 234, 26. 8. 1997, p. 16.

(4) OJ L 53, 24. 2. 1998, p. 23.

ANEXO - BILAG - ANHANG - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ - ANNEX - ANNEXE - ALLEGATO - BIJLAGE - ANEXO - LIITE - BILAGA

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0283 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0283

**98/283/EC: Commission Decision of 8 April 1998 amending Decision 92/469/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Denmark (Only the Danish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 128 , 30/04/1998 P. 0068 - 0068 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 April 1998 amending Decision 92/469/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Denmark (Only the Danish text is authentic) (98/283/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93 (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas the Commission, by Decision 92/469/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/551/EC (4), has authorized different methods for grading pig carcases in Denmark;

Whereas the use of the new formula for calculating the lean meat content of carcases introduced by the last amendment of Decision 92/469/EEC as regards the method 'Unifom` has revealed certain deficiencies relating to the accuracy of estimates; whereas, as a result, the use of a corrected formula should be authorised;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Part 3 of the Annex to Decision 92/469/EEC, the formula under point 3 is hereby replaced by the following:

'^y = 68,386166 - 0,1240656 x1 - 0,8717984 x2 + 0,1088299 x3`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 8 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 301, 20. 11. 1984, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 320, 22. 12. 1993, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 265, 11. 9. 1992, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 236, 18. 9. 1996, p. 49.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11495]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/71-0372]


Zero Stage Capital VI, LP; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 
312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Zero Stage Capital VI, LP, 101 Main 
Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, a Federal Licensee under the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in 
connection the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption 
under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which 
Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). Zero Stage 
Capital VI proposes to provide equity financing to t-Breeders, Inc. 
(``t-Breeders''), One Innovation Drive, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605. 
The financing is contemplated for funding growth.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Zero Stage Capital V, LP, an Associate of 
the Zero Stage Capital VI, currently owns greater than 10 percent of t-
Breeders, Inc. and therefore t-Breeders, Inc. is considered an 
Associate of Zero Stage Capital VI as defined in Sec. 107.50 of the 
regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: April 26, 2000.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 00-11495 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
§ 1614.201 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. ( a ) As an alternative to filing a complaint under this part, an aggrieved individual may file a civil action in a United States district court under the ADEA against the head of an alleged discriminating agency after giving the Commission not less than 30 days' notice of the intent to file such an action. Such notice must be filed in writing with EEOC, at P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by personal delivery or facsimile within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful practice.
( b ) The Commission may exempt a position from the provisions of the ADEA if the Commission establishes a maximum age requirement for the position on the basis of a determination that age is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the performance of the duties of the position.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37658, July 12, 1999; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009; 85 FR 35561, June 11, 2020]
[Crim. No. 10094.

Third Dist.

Feb. 20, 1979.]

#### In re ELOY SANCHEZ on Habeas Corpus.

*632Counsel

Eloy Sanchez, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Assistant Attorney General, Eddie T. Keller and W. Scott Thorpe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to relieve him of the partial restraint imposed by a finding of prior felony conviction contained in the abstract of judgment.

On December 7, 1976, in Orange County Superior Court, petitioner pleaded guilty to sale of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352) and admitted a prior felony conviction. (Orange County Super. Ct. No. 36189.) In the instant proceeding, petitioner complains he was not properly advised of and did not expressly waive his constitutional rights before admitting the prior conviction. *(In re Yurko*(1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 860, 865 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561].) The Attorney General properly concedes the lack of proper advisement and acknowledges that the finding of prior conviction must therefore be stricken. *(In re Yurko, supra,*10 Cal.3d at p. 864.)

Accordingly, we order the finding stricken. The allegation in the information of prior felony conviction, however, now stands unadjudicated. Petitioner may therefore be returned to Orange County Superior Court on order of that court for further proceedings on the allegation of prior conviction, if the court be so advised. *(In re McCoy*(1948) 32 Cal.2d 73, 77 [194 P.2d 531]; see *People*v. *Fisk*(1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 364, 372-373 [123 Cal.Rptr. 414].) Further proceedings, if taken, must be *633commenced within 60 days after a copy of this order has been filed in the trial court and served on the district attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. 2.)

The Orange County Superior Court is directed to modify the abstract of judgment by striking therefrom the finding of prior felony conviction. The Department of Corrections is ordered to redetermine petitioner’s legal status without reference to the finding of prior conviction. Immediately upon this decision becoming final, the clerk is ordered to file a true copy with the clerk of the Superior Court of Orange County and to serve a true copy upon' the District Attorney of Orange County.

Since petitioner is not entitled to immediate release, the petition for writ of habeas corpus, having served its purpose, is denied.

Regan, J., and Paras, J., concurred.
#### § 1918.110 COVID-19.

The requirements applicable to longshoring work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.501.
May 4, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, TX 78711 

Court of Appeals Cause No. 03-15-00025-CV 

Trial Court Case No. D-1-GN-12-000983; Lakeway Regional Medical Center, et al v. Lake Travis 

Transitional, et al 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

I am requesting an additional two weeks to complete and file the Reporter’s Record. I am responsible 

for the sole care of my mother, who had surgery on brain to remove cancerous tumor. She relapsed and 

had bacterial infection with zero immune system and I have been providing 24-hour care for her. I am 

working feverishly to get my records filed. I will file the record by May 18, 2015. 

Thank you, 

/s/ LaSonya Thomas
Addendum - Expatriate Agreement to United Kingdom



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
 

 
 ADDENDUM —EXPATRIATE AGREEMENT TO UNITED KINGDOM 
 Original Agreement Dated February 16, 2005 
 Amended on March 24, 2005 

			
	 To:
	  	Thomas R. Hammond
		
	 From:
	  	Patricia H. Summers
		
	 Re:
	  	Temporary Assignment to United Kingdom
		
	 Date:
	  	October 1, 2009

 This addendum extends your assignment agreement to April 1, 2011. 
  

			
	  
	 	
	Patricia H. Summers                                   
                               Date	 	
	Senior Vice President – Global Human Resources	 	

 I acknowledge receipt, understanding and acceptance of this addendum. 
  

	
	  

	Thomas R. Hammond                                   
                       Date
#### J. W. Hinson and The Cottondale State Bank, a Corporation, Appellants, v. John E. Gammon, *Appellee.*

When mortgagors have conveyed, all their rights and interests in the mortgaged property to other parties, such mortgagors are not necessary parties to a suit to foreclose the mortgage.

*642This case was decided by Division B.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*J8. C. Welch,*for Appellants;

*Paul Garter,*for Appellee.

Hocker, J.

The appellee, Gammon, filed a bill in the circuit court of Jackson county against the appellants and other parties to foreclose a mortgage executed to appellee by J. T. Mayo and his wife Susie, on the 31st of December, 1906, embracing certain lands therein described. Mayo and wife are not parties to the bill, and no relief is prayed against either of them. It is alleged in the bill that; after the mortgage was executed to appellee, Mayo and wife conveyed all the lands described in the mortgage to other parties, who are the defendants in this suit, and who are alleged to be the holders of the equity of redemption. The appellants demurred to the bill because Mayo and wife were not made parties to the suit. Decree *fro confesso*were entered against the other defendants. On rehearing the circuit judge overruled the demurrer, and from this ruling an appeal was taken to this court by Hinson and the bank.

The sole question here is whether Mayo and wife were necessary parties to the bill.

In 2 Jones on Mortgages (6th ed.) Sec. 1404, it is said: “The mortgagor, after he has conveyed the whole of the premises mortgaged is not a necessary party to the suit (foreclosure) *;*nor indeed is he a proper party, unless a personal judgment for any deficiency there may be, after *643applying the property to the debt, is sought against him.” To the same effect see Johnson v. Foster, 68 Iowa, 140, 26 N. W. Rep., 39; West v. Miller, 125 Ind., 70, 25 N. E. Rep., 143; Bernard v. Shemwell, 139 N. C., 446, 52 S. E. Rep., 64; Watts v. Creighton, 85 Iowa 154, 52 N. W. Rep., 12; Lockwood v. White, 65 Vt., 466, 26 Atl. Rep., 639; Bennett v. Mattingly, 110 Ind., 197, 10 N. E. Rep., 299; Wilsie On Mortgage foreclosures, section 118, p. 137; Kerr’s Suppl. to Wilsie on Mortgage foreclosures, p. 1109.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Taylor and Parkhill, J. J., concur;

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.