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

FOURTH DISTRICT

PETER SPOREA,

Appellant, 

v.

REGIONS BANK, N.A., 

Appellee. 

No. 4D20-2653

[July 7, 2021] 

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2014-CA-003212-AXXX-CE. 

Peter Sporea, Coral Springs, pro se. 

Loretta Comiskey O’Keeffe of Gibbons Neuman, Tampa, for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), and having 

considered appellant’s initial brief, the order on appeal is summarily 

affirmed. The initial brief presents no preliminary basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000702402
<NAME> DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1981-1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         219,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               257,092
<PP&E>                                      41,144,820
<DEPRECIATION>                              41,036,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,851
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,211
<SALES>                                        205,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,108
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  147,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,705
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,780
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<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>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending September 11, 2010

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------ | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|Sugar River Bancorp, MHC | * 3A1         | Application by Sugar River Bancorp, MHC, Newport, New Hampshire to become a mutual bank holding company through the acquisition of 100% of the voting shares of Sugar River Bank, Newport, New Hampshire, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:               | Not available
|Federal Register:        | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 11, 1995 (92), Para 92.41 Memorials]
[Page 1113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.92.41  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       127. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Senate of the State of 
     Nevada, relative to urging the Congress of the United States 
     to investigate the utility of importing water to Nevada from 
     sources outside Nevada; to the Committee on Resources.
       128. Also, memorial of the Senate of the State of Nevada, 
     relative to the management of public rangelands in the State 
     of Nevada; to the Committee on Resources.
```
#### Giles H. F. Van Horne, *Appellant, v.*Jacob France, *Respondent*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bookes, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, May 11, 1995 (64), Para 64.19 Recorded Vote]
[Page 685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.64.19  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. NADLER:

       Page 50, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 
     10 on page 52. 

It was decided in the

Yeas

121

negative

Nays

294
```
§ 90.15-1 Conditions under which equivalents may be used. ( a ) Where in this subchapter it is provided that a particular fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, shall be fitted or carried in a vessel, or that any particular provision shall be made or arrangement shall be adopted, the Commandant may accept in substitution therefor any other fitting, material, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, or any other arrangement: *Provided,* That he shall have been satisfied by suitable trials that the fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, or the provision or arrangement is at least as effective as that specified in this subchapter.
( b ) In any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the use of any particular equipment, apparatus, or arrangement not specifically required by law is unreasonable or impracticable, the Commandant may permit the use of alternate equipment, apparatus, or arrangement to such an extent and upon such conditions as will insure, to his satisfaction, a degree of safety consistent with the minimum standards set forth in this subchapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1999 ANNUAL
REPORT
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,097
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              54
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,751
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         89,112
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,713
<DEPOSITS>                                      72,030
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,294
<LONG-TERM>                                     18,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,983
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 105,713
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,782
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  626
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   117
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,525
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,352
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,440
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,085
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       48
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,158
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,499
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,499
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.24
<LOANS-NON>                                         32
<LOANS-PAST>                                       306
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,011
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       37
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,055
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               629
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            426


</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.35 Memorials]
[Pages 511-512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.35  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII.

       28. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of 
     Representatives of the State of Maine, relative to 
     memoralizing the Con

[[Page 512]]

     gress and the President of the United States to suspend the 
     July 26, 1995, deadline for sanctions against the State of 
     Maine under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; to 
     the Committee on Commerce.
```
October 10, 2012

Mr. David Chin 6410 L agunitas Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Mr. Chin : This is in response to y our September 11, 2012 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA

20 12

- 0993 ) petitioning the Federal Aviat ion Administration on behalf o f Audrey Chin for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. That exemption, if granted, would allow Audrey to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint sy stem (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint sy stem (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft

. Your daughter Audrey

is within the height and weight limits to be able to use CAR e S, an FAA approved Child Restraint Sy stem (CRS) . In addit ion, the Special Tomato device would be considered an Orthotic Positioning Dev ice (OPD), and does not require an exemption to be used during any

phase of flight. It is considered the same as a neck brace or a back brace that provides support for the perso n
. T he aircraft seatbelt is the "restraint " . The OPD is not a child restraint device. An FAA guidance document has been attached that addresses this issue (FAA FSAT 05

- 01). Itstates that the OPD may be used during all phases of flight by a person with disabilities in order to be positioned so the aircraft seatbelt can be used effectively as the primary

method of restraint. T he OPD is simply used to provide Audrey

with support and may

not be attached to the aircraft seat. The aircraft seat belt is th e primary method of restraint. The FAA approved CAR e S child restraint is then used in conjunction with the seatbelt.
A ir carriers are only

required by

FAA regulations to allow the use of FAA approved CRS on aircraft. Ultimately , an air carrier could deny the use of this positioning device (Special Tomato) and the air carrier would be in compliance with FAA regulations. However, 14 CFR part 382 , Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel , generally

requires air carriers to make reasonable accommodations for passengers with disabilities as long as they do not conflict with an FAA safety rule.2

T he use of an OPD does not conflict with FAA safety rule s (as clarified in the attached FAA guidance document) , if the following conditions are me t: (1) The p erson has a disability ; (2) The OPD does not attach to the airplane seat ; (3) The OPD has internal straps to help position the person ; and (4) The airplane seat belt is the primary restraint for all phases of flight. Because the relief you seek is not nec essary , we will take no further action on your petition. Sincerely , /s/ Ray mond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending June 11, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Order entered August 16, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00528

- CR
JOSE GARDUNO GUZMAN, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 80007

- 2015



### O RDER
The reporter’s record has not been filed. When we notified court reporter Susan Jane
Lindley that the record was past due, she informed us that appellant had not pa id for the record

. The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine wh ether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, i t shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effectiverepresentation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s reco rd; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date
of this order. The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,
whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Case 2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP ECF No. 127, PageID.606 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 1
#### The State ex rel. Cleveland Browns, Inc., n.k.a. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cleveland, Browns, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 220.]

(No. 97-1145

Submitted October 27, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*Duvin, Cahn & Hutton, Lee J. Hutton*and *Martin S. List; Dinn, Hochman & Potter, P.L.L.,*and *Irwin J. Dinn,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Comrich, Katz & Comrich Co., L.P.A., Neil M. Comrich*and *Robert S. Gurwin,*for appellee Mark A. Harper.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 62.30-1 Failsafe. ( a ) The failsafe state must be evaluated for each subsystem, system, or vessel to determine the least critical consequence.
( b ) All automatic control, remote control, safety control, and alarm systems must be failsafe.
October 23, 1996


Via Facsimile (847) 317-4662            Via Facsimile (312) 992-1061
Sandridge II Limited Partnership        Katten Muchin & Zavis
c/o The Balcor Company                  525 West Monroe Street
2355 Waukegan Road                      Suite 1600
Suite A-200                             Chicago, Illinois  60661-3693
Bannockburn, Illinois  60015            Attention:  Daniel J. Perlman

Via Facsimile (847) 317-4462
The Balcor Company
Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza
2355 Waukegan Road
Suite A-200
Bannockburn, Illinois  60015
Attention:  Alan Lieberman

Re:  Agreements of Sale dated August 27, 1996, by and between Alliance 
     Holdings, L.L.C. and Sandridge I Limited Partnership and Sandridge II 
     Limited Partnership for Sand Ridge Apartments and Sand Ridge II 
     Apartments, Pasadena, Texas ("Agreement")

     Notice is hereby tendered that Purchaser has elected to extend the Closing
Dates under the above-referenced Agreements to December 30, 1996, in accordance
with the terms of Section 8 of the Agreement (as modified by that certain
Second Modification Agreement dated October 2, 1996).

     The One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($150,000.00) payment required by he
Second Modification Agreement will be wired to the Escrow Agent on or before
October 25, 1996.

                              Alliance Holdings, L.L.C.

                              By:   /s/David O'Keefe
                                   -----------------------------------
                              Its:      Attorney in Fact
<PAGE>