alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001003936
<NAME> PITTSBURGH HOME FINANCIAL CORP.
<CURRENCY> 5,319,099

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,589,834
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,729,265
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                109,745,150
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    280,041,792
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,956,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             415,741,864
<DEPOSITS>                                 169,462,592
<SHORT-TERM>                                49,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,405,650
<LONG-TERM>                                160,066,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,026,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             415,741,864
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             18,616,189
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,856,250
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               186,730
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            27,659,169
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,011,778
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,016,714
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        8,642,455
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  600,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (9,950)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,727,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,320,288
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,289,788
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.31
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,072,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 3,072,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,737,973
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  399,036
<RECOVERIES>                                    17,807
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,956,744
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3432

_____________________________
L A T ISSHA M. J OHNSON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction.

May 25, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of her motion to reduce or modify her sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely. However, the motion was filed wit hin sixty days of the date that this Court issued the mandate s in her direct appeals. See Bailey v. State , 136 So. 3d 615 , 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing.”). A s the State concedes, the motion was timely filed

. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c).

The trial court’s failure to con sider Petitioner’s rule 3.800(c) motion on the merits was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Bacchus v. State , 95 8 So. 2d 1016, 10172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, w e grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the order dismi ssing Petitioner’s rule 3.800(c) motion, and remand with directions to consider the motion on its merits.

O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion unde r Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

La Tissha M. Johnson, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### § 102-39.85 What information am I required to report?

You must submit, within 90 calendar days after the close of each fiscal year (FY), an exchange/sale report using the online Personal Property Reporting Tool template found at *https://www.property.reporting.gov.* This template provides the specific information needed for your agency's report. You can contact the GSA Help Desk at *help.PPRT@gsa.gov* if you need assistance accessing the online reporting tool. All reports, including negative reports, must be submitted electronically through the Personal Property Reporting Tool. Transactions involving books and periodicals in your libraries need not be reported.

[88 FR 25511, Apr. 27, 2023]
#### § 102-118.190 When buying passenger transportation must my agency reference the applicable contract?

Yes, when buying passenger transportation, your agency must reference the applicable contract on a GTR or passenger transportation document (e.g., ticket).
#### § 102-73.70 Are Executive agencies required to acquire leased space by negotiation?

Yes, Executive agencies must acquire leased space by negotiation, except where the sealed bid procedure is required by the Competition in Contracting Act, as amended (CICA) (41 U.S.C. 253(a)).
IB

Union Calendar No. 106

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 592

[Report No. 106–188]

To redesignate Great Kills Park in the Gateway National Recreation Area

as ‘‘World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

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

Committee on Resources

JUNE 16, 1999

Additional sponsors: Ms. CARSON, Mr. CROWLEY, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. WATKINS,

Mr. BUYER, Mr. STUMP, Mr. FORBES, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. KING, Mr.

WEINER, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr.

ENGEL, and Mr. JEFFERSON

JUNE 16, 1999

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To redesignate Great Kills Park in the Gateway National

Recreation Area as ‘‘World War II Veterans Park at

Great Kills’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 592 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF GATEWAY NA2 TIONAL RECREATION AREA AS WORLD WAR II

3 VETERANS PARK AT GREAT KILLS.

4 Section 3(b) of Public Law 92–592 (16 U.S.C.

5 460cc–2(b)) is amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new

8 paragraph:

9 ‘‘(2) The portion of the Staten Island Unit of the

10 recreation area known as Great Kills Park is hereby redes11 ignated as ‘‘World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills’’.

12 Any reference to Great Kills Park in any law, regulation,

13 map, document, record, or other paper of the United

14 States shall be considered to be a reference to ‘‘World War

15 II Veterans Park at Great Kills’’.

16 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF GATEWAY NA17 TIONAL RECREATION AREA AS WORLD WAR

18 VETERANS PARK AT MILLER FIELD.

19 Section 3(b) of Public Law 92–592 (16 U.S.C. 460cc–

20 2(b)) is amended—

21 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; and

22 (2) by adding at the end the following new para23 graph:

24 ‘‘(2) The portion of the Staten Island Unit of the recre25 ation area known as Miller Field is hereby designated as

26 ‘World War Veterans Park at Miller Field’. Any reference
3

•HR 592 RH

1 to such Miller Field in any law, regulation, map, document,

2 record, or other paper of the United States shall be consid3 ered to be a reference to ‘World War Veterans Park at Miller

4 Field’.’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to designate

a portion of Gateway National Recreation Area as World

War Veterans Park at Miller Field.’’.

Union Calendar No. 106

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 592

[Report No. 106–188]

A BILL

To redesignate Great Kills Park in the Gateway

National Recreation Area as ‘‘World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills’’.

JUNE 16, 1999

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vsSAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez, Esq., of the law firm Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen, P.A., 

hereby enters his appearance as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs and respectfully requests that 

copies of all future pleadings, orders, and other papers filed or served in this matter be served on 

him via CM/ECF or at the address listed below, as appropriate. 

Dated: March 9, 2023. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 

 Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez

 Florida Bar No.: 18122 

 GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.

 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150 

 Coral Gables, FL 33134 

 Ph: 305-442-8666 

 Fx: 305-285-1668 

 aag@grossmanroth.com 

 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 9, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

with the Court via the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys 

of record. 

 

 

 Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez

 Florida Bar No.: 18122 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-73.75 What functions must Federal agencies perform with regard to leasing building space?

Federal agencies, upon approval from GSA, must perform all functions of leasing building space, and land incidental thereto, for their use except as provided in this subpart.
Tim Solomon 

Mayor 

406.265.671 0 

Margaret Hencz 

City Judge 

406.265.8575 

David Peterson 

PublicWorks.Director 

406.265.4941 

Douglas Kaercher 

Finance Director/Clerk 

406.265.6719 

Chris Inman 

Parks & Recreation 

Director 

406.265.5781 

April10, 2013 

Docket Operations M-30 

West Building Ground Floor W 12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590;3 

United States of America 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington DC 

RE: Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605 

5L.t 

On behalf of the City of Havre, its citizens, and the residents of the surrounding region who are 

served by Silver Airways Essential Air Service, I am expressing our concern over the possible 

suspension of essential air service to either Miles City or Lewistown, Montana at this time. The 

loss ofthis service in their areas would have a negative impact on the seven communities 

which>Silver Airways serves, especially in light of the fact that Montana is one of the largest 

rural states in our nation-the elimination of any form of public transportation creates 

another hardship for the region's population. 

Please reconsider your tentative decision to enforce this Order of Show Cause-these 

communities have not had sufficient time to evaluate the situation nor have they had an 

opportunity to design or implement a solution to increase usage or to formulate a plan to 

compensate for the loss. I ask you to take the time to research the impact on Montana this 

action may have, and reconsider this order. 

Again, Montana's essential air service is one of the few transportation options available, and 

losing any segment of it negatively affects our state. I thank you for your reconsideration of 

the situation, and look forward to seeing a favorable resolution. 

Sincerely, 

.···~ 

~-·.· 

Tim Solomon, Mayor .· 

Pty of Havre •·. 

520 4th Street • P.O. Box 231 • Havre, MT 59501 • Fax: 406.262.9459
#### § 102-85.95 Who pays for the TI allowance?

The customer agency pays for the amount of the tenant improvement allowance actually used.
§ 3040.222 Data collection plan and report for negotiated service agreements. ( a ) The Postal Service shall include with any request concerning a negotiated service agreement a detailed plan for providing data or information on actual experience under the agreement sufficient to allow evaluation of whether the negotiated service agreement operates in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10).
( b ) A data report under the plan is due 60 days after each anniversary date of implementation and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each 12-month period the agreement has been in effect: ( 1 ) The change in net financial position of the Postal Service as a result of the agreement. This calculation shall include for each year of the agreement: ( i ) The actual mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service;
( ii ) An analysis of the effects of the negotiated service agreement on the net overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; and
( iii ) If mailer-specific costs are not available, the source and derivation of the costs that are used shall be provided, including a discussion of the currency and reliability of those costs and their suitability as a proxy for the mailer-specific costs.
( 2 ) A discussion of the changes in operations of the Postal Service that have resulted from the agreement. This shall include, for each year of the agreement, identification of each component of the agreement known to enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions in each year of the agreement.
( 3 ) An analysis of the impact of the negotiated service agreement on the marketplace, including a discussion of any and all actions taken to protect the marketplace from unreasonable harm.
From: George Tsiolis [mailto:gtsiolis@nj.rr.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:26 AM

To: Withey, Charlotte

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; McKaughan, Colleen; 'Giff, Jennifer'; 'Martz, Verle'; 'Lindsay, Brett'

Subject: RE: Followup to November 14 Call Between SRPMIC, Phoenix Cement and EPA

Importance: High

Dear Charlotte, 

Thank you again for providing to SRPMIC and PCC the draft regulatory text for 

the portion of the RHR FIP proposal that would concern PCC. SRPMIC and 

PCC are still reviewing the text.

During our November 14, 2013 conference call, the EPA had committed also to 

send to SRPMIC and PCC a copy of the EPA’s latest cost analysis for the 

installation of additional NOx controls at PCC, and to have a follow-up telephone

discussion about the cost analysis. We understood that the latest cost analysis 

is different from the cost analysis in the October 2012 contractor report which 

Colleen provided to PCC on November 6, 2012.

SRPMIC and PCC would need to base their responsive submittal of additional 

information to the EPA not only on the draft regulatory text, but also on the EPA’s 

latest cost analysis. This is because the additional information that SRPMICPCC would submit, if appropriate, would be primarily financial, though informed 

by the regulatory text.

Please send the EPA’s latest cost analysis to Brett Lindsay, copied on this email, and please let’s arrange for Gregory Nudd and Brett to have the telephone 

discussion regarding the cost analysis as soon as possible. This way, SRPMIC 

and PCC will be able to make their responsive submittal in a timely fashion.

I cannot be sure that SRPMIC-PCC will be able to meet your (new) December 17 

timeframe. Hopefully that would not stop the EPA from completing its tribal 

consultation in a way that allows SRPMIC-PCC to submit information based on 

both the EPA’s cost analysis and the regulatory text and materially factors 

SRPMIC-PCC’s submittal into the development of the FIP proposal.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Thank you.

Best regards,

George A. Tsiolis

Counsel to SRPMIC-PCC
George A. Tsiolis

Attorney at Law

351 Lydecker Street

Englewood, New Jersey 07631

Cell: 602-319-4021

Office: 201-408-4256

Fax: 201-408-4622

Email: gtsiolis@nj.rr.com

Web: www.gtsiolis.com

The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential 

information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named 

above, and may be privileged. If the reader of this message is not the 

intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the 

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 

distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by 

telephone (602-319-4021), and delete the original message. Thank you.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis D. Oklak,Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/   Dennis  D. Oklak                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Dennis D. Oklak                                              |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  of the    General Partner |
|   | Date:  March  14, 2006                             |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and will be retainedby Duke Realty Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130260 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PAMELA MACOR, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Gary Macor, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130260 

 COA: 264076 

Genesee CC: 04-080340-NH 

ROBERT KOWALSKI, M.D.,

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

McLAREN REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MARTA Z. BONKOWSKI, M.D.,

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

Washington v Sinai Hospital of Greater Detroit (Docket No. 130641) is pending on 

appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in 

the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

l0718 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 21, 2006 

 Clerk
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 576

To amend title 4, United States Code, to add the Martin Luther King,

Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag should especially be displayed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to add the Martin

Luther King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which

the flag should especially be displayed.

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

3 That section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amend4 ed by inserting ‘‘Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, the

5 third Monday in January;’’ after ‘‘January 20;’’.

Æ
#### § 101-26.607 Billings.

Unless other arrangements have been made between the Defense Logistics Agency and the requisitioning activity, billings for sales will be rendered at least monthly on Standard Form 1080, Voucher for Transfers Between Appropriations and/or Funds, supported by a listing of documents including identification of requisitions and related cards reflecting data pertaining to the gross sale, the retail loss allowance, and any credits for adjustments applicable to prior billings. In addition to these charges, an accessorial charge will be made on shipments destined for overseas to cover expenses incident to overseas packing, handling, and transportation. The Defense supply centers shall be provided with a continental U.S. address for payment of bills for overseas shipments.

[42 FR 28750, Nov. 11, 1977]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81371-ROSENBERG

JAMES E. GOETZ, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment, DE 56, which was previously referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and 

Recommendation. On December 18, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Motion be granted. DE 63. The parties filed notices of 

no objections at docket entries 64 and 65. The Court has reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Upon review, the Court agrees with the analysis in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation and concludes that the Defendant’s Motion should be granted for the reasons 

set forth therein.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Case 9:22-cv-81371-RLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2024 Page 1 of 2
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, DE 63, is hereby ADOPTED;

2. The Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DE 63, is GRANTED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

3. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DE 36, is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. The Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of its Production 

Obligations, DE 35, is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 3rd day of 

January, 2024.

_______________________________ 

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

Case 9:22-cv-81371-RLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2024 Page 2 of 2