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

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<CIK>                                       0000733775
<NAME>                                      CRUISE AMERICA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  1
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                 MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                   APR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                          1
<CASH>                                                               4,029
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        5,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                         11,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    22,902
<PP&E>                                                             106,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      24,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     107,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               29,159
<BONDS>                                                             50,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                58
<OTHER-SE>                                                          26,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       107,224
<SALES>                                                             41,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    95,620
<CGS>                                                               38,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       61,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    22,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   7,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      3,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         1,084
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  2,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         2,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.46
        

</TABLE>
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 1809 Lower Tribunal No. CF12

- 010907

- XX

_____________________________
K ENDALL W AINWRIGHT , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Melissa Gravitt , Judge.

June 18, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Kendall Wainwright
, Crestview , pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
AUITIXN.T-EI 78711 

Honorable Don S. Caldwell, Jr. Opinion No. H-1002 

District/County Attorney 

Limestone County Re: Appointment of special 

Groesbeck, Texas 76642 deputy sheriffs. 

Dear Mr. Caldwell: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the authority 

of a sheriff to appoint or hire handgun carrying special 

deputies "who are not certified peace officers" to patrol 

an annual celebration in his county. 

This office has consistently held that the appointment 

of deputy sheriffs must be authorized by law. Attorney 

General Opinions V-1050 (1950); V-699 (1948); O-4338 (1942); 

O-207 (1939). We are not aware of any statute which would 

authorize the appointment of such special deputies, except 

possibly article 6869.1, V.T.C.S., which authorizes the appointment of reserve deputy sheriffs. However, such reserve 

deputies as well as all other peace officers not specifically 

excepted must satisfy the requirements of article 4413(29aa), 

V.T.C.S. Attorney General Opinions H-549 (1975); H-167 (1973); 

M-1267 (1972); M-1026 (1971); M-767 (1971). Section 2A(a) of 

this article provides in part: 

The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer 

Standards and Education shall establish 

minimum training standards for all reserve 

law enforcement officers which must be fulfilled before a person appointed as a reserve law enforcement officer may carry a 

weapon or otherwise act as a peace officer. 

As you note in your request, the Commission has established 

such standards. 

Accordingly, in our opinion a sheriff has no authority 

to appoint special deputy sheriffs in this context unless 

such deputies satisfy the requirements of article 4413(29aa). 

P. 4152 
Honorable Don S. Caldwell, Jr. - page 2 (H-1002) 

-_ SUMMARY 

Deputy sheriffs appointed to patrol an 

annual celebration must satisfy the requirements of article 4413(29aa) in order 

to act as a peace officer. 

xery truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

p. 4153
#### PETER GROTH, Respondent, *v.*THOMAS J. WASHBURN, Appellant.

*Evidence*— when *a husband, cannot avail himself of a judgment recovered by his wife against the same defendant for the same accident.*

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages, claimed to have been sustained by him in respect to payments for medicines, medical expenses, etc., for his wife which were rendered necessary because of injuries resulting from the negligence of the defendant’s driver. Upon the trial the court refused to allow the defeiidant to call witnesses to disprove the negligence of which he was accused, upon the ground that the plaintiff’s wife had previously recovered damages against the defendant for the same accident.

*Eeld,*error ; that the former judgment was neither an estoppel in favor of the plaintiff, nor was it conclusive on the subject of the defendant’s negligence.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury at the New York Circuit.

Thornton, *Tarle &*Kiendl, for the appellant.

*J. H.*Whitelegge, for the respondent.

Per Curiam :

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as husband of the defendant, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by him in respect to the payment for medicines, medical expenses, etc., for his wife, rendered necessary by alleged injuries to her resulting from negligence of the defendant’s driver. The plaintiff’s wife had previously recovered damages for the same accident.

On the trial the defendant’s counsel offered witnesses to disprove —to use the language of the offer — the negligence of which he Was accused. This offer was rejected, and the defendant excepted.

*325The rejection of the evidence seems to have been predicated of the conclusion that the judgment record in the action against the defendant for injuries received by her brought by the wife, had been introduced in evidence and ‘was conclusive upon the subject of the defendant’s negligence. This, we think, was an erroneous ruling, and one which requires that the judgment should be reversed. The action was not between the same parties or those in privity with them. It was not in reference to the same subject-matter. It involved it only incidentally, and it was not an adjudication of the rights of the plaintiff. His action was entirely different from that of the wife. The judgment record was neither an estoppel in favor of the plaintiff nor was it conclusive evidence on the subject of negligence. The defendant had the right to present any proofs upon that subject he could command, and the denial of this right, as already suggested, was error.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
#### BUCKLES et al. *v.*PEOPLES GAS LIGHT & COKE CO.

No. 442.

Decided December 3, 1962.

*Stanley B. Balbach*for appellants.

*Clarence H. Ross*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

GARY LEE HAMM, II

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 511

LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 003013

- A

- X

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 30, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Marion County

, Lisa D. Herndon , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and Betty

Wyatt, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona

Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee,

and Daniel P. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.2 In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed

by the trial court following a jury trial. However, we remand for entry of an

amended cost/fees order that shows the assessment of $100.00 (not

$150.00) for the costs of prosecution consistent with the c ourt ’ s oral

pronouncement.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

WALLIS

, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
From: Delmar Forst

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:56:08 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Delmar Forst
Crete, Nebraska
```

[House Document 107-257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 107-257

 
                 CONTINUATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS IS 
  TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND AUGUST 17, 2002, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 
                                1622(d)

    September 4, 2002.--Referred to the Committee on International 
                  Relations and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                       Washington, August 14, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Section 202(d) of the National 
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), provides for the automatic 
termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the 
anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in 
the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice 
stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the 
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have 
sent the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency caused by 
the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, 
is to continue in effect beyond August 17, 2002, to the Federal 
Register for publication.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.
                                 Notice

                              ----------                              

     CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS

    On August 17, 2001, consistent with the authority provided 
me under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), I issued Executive Order 13222. In that 
order, I declared a national emergency with respect to the 
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 
foreign policy, and economy of the United States in light of 
the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as 
amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.). Because the Export 
Administration Act has not been renewed by the Congress, the 
national emergency declared on August 17, 2001, must continue 
in effect beyond August 17, 2002. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency 
declared in Executive Order 13222.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and 
transmitted to the Congress.
                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, August 14, 2002.

                                

```
Exhibit 23.01














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors


FNB United Corp. and Subsidiaries


Asheboro, North Carolina


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-72686, 333-54702, 333-99333, 333-105442, 333-109450, 333-133734, 333-143703, 333-144132 and 333-180604) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (Nos. 033-59565 and 333-158219) on Form S-3 of FNB United Corp. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) of our reports dated March 8, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of FNB United Corp. and Subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of FNB United Corp. and Subsidiaries.





/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina


March 8, 2013
**Exhibit 21**

** **

TheCompany’s only active subsidiaries are each wholly owned and are included inthe consolidated financial statements of the Company.

 

Theirjurisdictions of incorporation are as follows:

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**                          | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| Computer Horizons  E-Solutions (Europe) Limited |       | England and Wales                 |
| Horizons  Technologies, Inc.               |       | Delaware                          |
| Strategic Outsourcing  Services, Inc.      |       | Delaware                          |
| G. Triad Development  Corp.                     |       | New Jersey                        |
| Integrated Computer  Management, Inc.      |       | New Jersey                        |
| Forgone, LLC                                    |       | Delaware                          |
| eB Networks, LLC                           |       | Delaware                          |
| CG Computer Services  Corp.                     |       | California                        |
| Horizon  Enterprises, Inc.                 |       | Delaware                          |
| Spargo  Holdings, Inc.                     |       | Delaware                          |
| Spargo Holdings  II, Inc.                  |       | Delaware                          |
| CHC Healthcare  Solutions, LLC                  |       | Delaware                          |
| GBTS America, Inc.                         |       | Delaware                          |
| GBTS America, LLC                               |       | Delaware                          |
| GBS Holdings Private  Limited                   |       | Mauritius                         |

 

69

----
From: Garhart, Christine

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:39:44 PM

As a member of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), I am

pleased that our public policy supports preventive reproductive health care

for women. I urge you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of

Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and to reject any exemptions for 3religious employers.2 These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide

countless women better access to necessary health care.

Women should make the decision to use or not to use contraceptive services;

employers should not decide for them.

While AAUW believes that 3religious refusal2 exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste

for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM1s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.

This message is for the designated recipient(s) only and may contain

privileged or confidential information. If you received it in error, please

notify the sender immediately and delete the original.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00315-CV

PATRICK JOHNSON-OLIVER, Appellant

V.

LANTANA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

INC., Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 431st District 

Court

of Denton County (22-8790-431)

July 3, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Buadore Wiltsie, Appellant, v. David Johnson, Respondent.

M otion'for reargument denied, without costs.

*Per CuHam*

memoranda filed with the clerk.
EXHIBIT (10)(A)



 EXHIBIT 10(a) 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 of our report dated April 25, 2016 and April 27, 2016, relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account VA B and Separate Account VA B NY, respectively, and to the use of our reports dated April 25, 2016 and April 27, 2016, relating to the financial statements of Transamerica Life Insurance Company and Transamerica
Financial Life Insurance Company, respectively, which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in such Registration Statement. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
 Chicago, Illinois 

April 27, 2016 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of
Additional Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated February 6, 2015, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, (2) dated April 25, 2016, with respect to the
statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-185573) and related Prospectuses of Transamerica Variable Annuity
Series, MEMBERS Variable Annuity Series and Partners Variable Annuity Series. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Des Moines, IA 
 April 27, 2016
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20800

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMAEL ROMAN-FIGUEROA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-94-1

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

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ismael Roman-Figueroa (“Roman”)

has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Roman has not filed a response. 

Our review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record

discloses no nonfrivolous point for appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000000613-JAN-201207:57 AM