alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSHUA CHARLES CARVER, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2882

LT Case No. 2020-00175-CFFA

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed October 3, 2022 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Flagler County, 

Terence R. Perkins, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George 

D. E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender,

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
2

AFFIRMED. See Suarez Albo v. State, 300 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2020); see also Gordon v. State, 219 So. 3d 189, 197 n.8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) 

(“For example, in a homicide prosecution, the jury is not permitted to consider 

any non-homicide lesser-included offenses (e.g., aggravated battery) even if 

such lesser-included offenses are subsumed within and necessarily 

established by proof of the murder charge, unless there is some disputed 

issue of fact (and some evidence to support a theory) regarding an 

intervening cause of death.”); State v. Barritt, 531 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 1988); 

Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1977) superseded on other grounds

by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.490; Humphrey v. State, 690 So. 2d 

1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
#### AMOS BENNETT *v.*G. W. FLANAGAN.

*Receipt.*

It was error to charge the jury that a common receipt in full for money was a bar to recovery in an action of assumpsit brought for work, when there was no claim of a compromise.

Assumpsit for work and labor. Jury trial, September Term, 1881, Powers, J., presiding. Yerdict for the defendant. The case appears in the opinion.

*J. W. Russell*and *O. W. Brownell, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*H. 8. Peck,*for the defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

This is an action to recover an alleged balance for wages earned by the plaintiff’s minor son. No question arises which is affected by the infancy of the son. The suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover upon the contract, according to its terms as made by the son. The defendant and the son made a settlement, and the latter executed a receipt for three dollars in full of the account for his work. No claim was made upon the trial that the settlement was a compromise or an adjustment of disputed and conflicting claims. The question in controversy was whether the defendant paid the son, at the time of the settlement, all that was then due, the defendant insisting that the sum named in the receipt, three dollars, was all that was due, and the plaintiff that a larger sum was justly owing him; and that the son signed the receipt supposing it to be only a receipt for the three dollars, and not in full. The jury were told that if the son understood that he was settling his entire claim, then the receipt was a bar to the suit. The defendant claimed that the contract originally made had been changed by a subsequent agreement during the term of service, and the jury were instructed if they *550found that the son was at work under the new arrangement that the *receipt barred*his remedy. We think holding the receipt conclusive and a bar to the suit, was error. It has often been decided in this State that a receipt is not in any case conclusive of the rights of the parties, but is always open to explanation, and even contradiction, by parol evidence, whatever the parties may have understood at the time. The jury should have been told to ascertain the amount which became due the plaintiff under the contract, either, as originally made or as modified, if they found that it had been modified, and the amount of payments made thereon by the defendant, and render a verdict accordingly, notwithstanding the receipt. For the failure so to do, a new trial is granted.

The exceptions show only extracts from the judge’s charge. We regret that it is not given in full, as the part given may, in connection with the part omitted, have been correct; but we must dispose of the case by the record, and with the above result.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Argued and submitted June 14,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration July 26, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Kim D. Wood, Claimant. BILLS KWIK MARKET and Grocers Insurance, *Petitioners, v.*Kim D. WOOD and Consolidated Freightways, *Respondents.*

(WCB 92-16294; CA A85830)

899 P2d 1219

Karen O’Kasey argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief was Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.

Alan M. Scott argued the cause for respondent Kim D. Wood. With him on the brief was Galton, Scott & Golett.

No appearance by respondent Consolidated Freightways.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*693PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order holding that claimant’s aggravation claim is compensable. At oral argument, both parties agreed that the new revisions to Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 332, (SB 369), which became effective June 7, 1995, apply to this case and ask that we remand to the Board to reconsider in light of the new law. We agree that is the proper disposition. *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
§ 102-33.70 What directives must we follow when planning to acquire Government aircraft? When planning to acquire Government aircraft, you must follow the requirements in— ( a ) 31 U.S.C. 1343, “Buying and Leasing Passenger Motor Vehicles and Aircraft”;
( b ) OMB Circular A-126, “Improving the Management and Use of Government Aircraft” (*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*);
( c ) OMB Circular A-11, Part 2, Section 25.5, Table 1, Business Case for Acquisition and Maintenance of Aircraft (*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*);
( d ) OMB Circular A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities” (*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*); and
( e ) OMB Circular A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs” (*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*).
# Comments on: 2018-2234: Van der Hoeven Horticultural v. Glass Investment Projects
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
         
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BYREFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>  
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                 2,355,962
<SECURITIES>                             742,174
<RECEIVABLES>                          4,120,219
<ALLOWANCES>                              52,521
<INVENTORY>                            7,732,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      17,077,636
<PP&E>                                   811,810
<DEPRECIATION>                            98,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        20,357,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,799,409
<BONDS>                                  429,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                               4,526,365
<OTHER-SE>                            12,602,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          20,357,896
<SALES>                                4,475,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,475,070
<CGS>                                  2,820,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,820,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       2,800,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        24,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          765,216
<INCOME-TAX>                             329,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      436,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             436,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .05
         

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23  Independent Auditors Consent  The Board of Directors Capital Corp of the West:  We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the registration statement (No. 333-41440) on Form S-8 of Capital Corp of
the West of our report dated January 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Capital Corp of the West and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in
the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Corp of the West.     Sacramento, California March 11, 2004
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CRESCENZO HOLDINGS, LLC; ) DEMETER PROPERTIES, INC.; ) HEIDI BEHRENDT; and DYLAN ) ARNOLD, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2051 ) 1000 CHANNELSIDE ) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ) INC., a Florida Corporation, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 5, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge. Ann M. Allison of Allison Law Group, Temple Terrace, for Appellants. David J. Lopez of James R. DeFurio, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          17,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,079
<PP&E>                                          15,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,731
<BONDS>                                          5,996
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           733
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,445
<SALES>                                        329,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,544
<CGS>                                          252,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (50)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,739
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,321
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        


</TABLE>
No. 11-8997.

#### Winters *v.*Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[(AC) 23-17]


Advisory Circular: Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification 
of Part 23 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Advisory Circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
23-17, Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 
Airplanes. Advisory Circular 23-17 provides information and guidance 
concerning acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing 
compliance with Part 23 applicable to Subpart D from Sec. 23.671 and 
Subpart F.

DATES: On April 25, 2000, the Small Airplane Directorate issued 
Advisory Circular 23-17.
    How To Obtain Copies: AC 23-17 is available on the internet at 
http://www.faa.gov/avr/air/airhome.htm. A copy of AC 23-17 may be also 
ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Post Office Box 371954, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Identify the publication as AC 23-17, 
Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, 
Stock Number 050-007-01287-0. The cost of AC 23-17 is $21.00. Send a 
check or money order with your request, made payable to the 
Superintendent of Documents. Orders for mailing to foreign countries 
should include an additional 25 percent of the total price to cover 
handling. No C.O.D. orders are accepted.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 20, 2000.
Larry Werth,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-16332 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```

[House Report 106-670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-670

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 
   761, THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT

                                _______
                                

   June 12, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 523]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 523, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives all points of order against the 
conference report to accompany S. 761, the Electronic 
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and against its 
consideration. The rule further provides that the conference 
report shall be considered as read.
    The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of 
clause 8 of rule XXII (requiring a three-day layover of a 
conference report) because, although the conference report was 
filed Thursday, June 8, the printed copy was not available 
until Monday, June 12 and the conference report may be 
considered by the House as early as Tuesday, June 13. A waiver 
of clause 7(d) of rule XXII (concerning the sufficiency of the 
joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report) 
is also needed because the joint explanatory statement does not 
contain sufficient detail as required by the rules of the 
House.

                                  

```
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION 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 of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Thomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer and Shelley Goff, Treasurer of the Company, certify, 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; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:August 3, 2009By:/s/Thomas J. HowellsThomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer  Date:August 3, 2009By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Treasurer
#### § 302-17.2 Why does relocation affect personal income taxes?

When you are relocated from one permanent duty station to another, you are reimbursed by your employing agency for certain expenses. The IRC requires that you report many of these relocation benefits, including some that your agency pays on your behalf, as taxable income. When you receive taxable benefits, you must pay income tax on the amount or value of those benefits. However, 5 U.S.C. 5724b also requires that your agency reimburse you for substantially all of the additional Federal, state, and local income taxes you incur as a result of any taxable relocation benefits. A reimbursement for taxes is also a taxable benefit on which you must pay additional taxes.
# Comments on: 2017-1999: AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
§ 302-7.1 Who is eligible for the transportation and temporary storage of household goods (HHG) at Government expense? The following are eligible for the transportation and temporary storage of household goods (HHG) at Government expense when a relocation has been determined to be in the interest of the Government: ( a ) An employee transferred between official stations, within or outside the continental United States (CONUS);
( b ) A new appointee to their first official station within or outside the CONUS;
( c ) An employee being returned to CONUS for separation from an outside CONUS assignment, after completion of an agreed upon period of services;
( d ) An SES employee authorized last move home benefits under §§ 302-3.304 through 302-3.315 of this chapter;
( e ) An employee authorized a temporary change of station (TCS).
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-07, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010; FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18339, Apr. 1, 2011; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12255, Feb. 16, 2024]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JACQUELINE CRANDALL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2098

[July 22, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Dina A. Keever-Agrama, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502020MH002104.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jacqueline I. 

Kurland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

FORST, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### SERVED: August 28, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF MICHELLE KRAEMER DocketNo. FAA-2015- 2441 (Civil Pep.alty,l\ction)

." .....
AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Paragraphs #2 and #3 ofthe Procedural Order are amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. On or before January 15, 2016, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production requests and/or interrogatories. Ifthe parties cannotresolve a discovery dispute they shall submitthe dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 2. The parties shall be prepared to presentthis case at a hearing on or after January 18, 2016, subject to the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date and time for,the**he~ri,ng** will be forthcoming in a separate Order. 1 ':
..**,-.~.** ; '\"'··

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1The undersigned is transferring to another federal agency as an Administrative Law Judge.

i
.SERVICE LIST- BY

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000 1

BrianJ. Lawler, Respondent's Counsel PILOT LAW, P.C. 1551 9TH Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 TEL: 619-255-2398 FAX: 619-231-4984 BrianaMartino, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7313 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-2441 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 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-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.

,, 2 \,• ' '{•
§ 105-8.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by March 9, 1992, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part, and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A list of interested persons consulted;
( 2 ) A description of the areas examined and any problems identified and;
( 3 ) A description of any modifications made or to be made.
# Comments on: 18-1997: SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential