alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lourdes VAQUERO, Appellant, v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE, CO., Appellee.

No. 97-2916

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 3, 1999.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1999.

Ginsberg *&*Schwartz and Todd R. Schwartz and Joseph M. Rodriguez, Miami, for appellant.

Rosner & Simon; Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Lourdes Vaquero appeals from a final summary judgment entered by the county court in favor of Security National Insurance Company. The county court certified two questions as issues of great public importance, the first of which is:

> ARE PAYMENTS FOR PIP BENEFITS UNDER § 627.736(4)(b) OVERDUE WHEN TIMELY MAILED BY THE INSURER BUT NOT RECEIVED BY THE INSURED?

We accept jurisdiction and answer this question in the negative.

Having carefully reviewed the record in this case, we decline to answer the second question certified by the county court. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.160(f). We affirm the Final Judgment entered by the trial judge in as much as it concludes that under the facts of this case the payment made by the insurer within thirty days of receipt of the insured’s PIP claim was not overdue under section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995).

Affirmed.
SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists is an established firm of 35 years with existing clients across

northern California and southern Oregon that include rural communities, small community service districts, public utilities districts, harbor districts, and tribal entities. Grant ing this exemption would enable our clients to access high - resolution spatial data such as imagery, surface elevation models, and topography information that would otherwise be too expensive for use in many of the projects relating to public infrastructure and environmental compliance and monitoring. Current high - resolution data acquisition typically requires the use of either full - scale manned aircraft or extensive field crew efforts. Using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as a platform to gather high resolution data would significantly lessen the amount of field crew efforts thereby reducing overall costs to small, disadvantaged communities and service districts maintaining utility infrastructure within tax based budgets. In addition to leveraging cos ts for small communities and providing financially -viable opportunities to procure high - resolution spatial data, operating a UAV can be considered a “green” substitute in comparison to a conventional manned - aircraft approach. By using battery power and el ectric motors, the UAV does not produce air pollution and is an environmentally - conscious alternative to the cabin class, six- cylinder internal combustion twin engine aircraft that are typically utilized for aerial surveys (while burning approximately 20 - 3 0 gallons per hour of leaded aviation fuel). UAVs reduce the carbon footprint of aerial surveys and decrease noise pollution because they are propelled by battery- powered electric motors rather than an internal combustion engine.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSurvey of Methods to Predict Controller Workload for Real-Time Monitoring of Airspace SafetyThe Real Time Safety Monitoring (RTSM) approach allows for assessment and prediction of the safety margin in the National Airspace System (NAS) to help preempt incidents and accidents, rather than having to reactively mitigate them. In RTSM, the NAS is modeled using state variables, and safety metrics are defined in terms of these state variables. The safety metrics have been classified as weather-related, airspace-related, and human-related. Many of the formulated human-related safety metrics need an estimate of the controller workload for their computation. However, this computation is not trivial. Hence, in this report, we perform a literature survey to identify the different factors that enable the computation of controller workload and categorize these factors. Next, we describe studies undertaken to determine a minimal set of factors that pro- vide a correct assessment of controller workload. Lastly, we survey approaches for evaluating how well the selected factors correlate with the controllers' subjective assessment of their workload. Based on this survey, we present factors beneficial to computing and predicting controller workload in real time, and discuss the status of data sources necessary for these computations.Document ID20180006676Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRoychoudhury, Indranil*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Spirkovska, Liljana*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Oconnor, Molly*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Kulkarni, Chetan*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 24, 2018Publication DateAugust 1, 2018Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2018-219985ARC-E-DAA-TN60548Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNA14AA60CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsNational Airspace Systemsafety monitoringcontroller workloadAvailable DownloadsNameType20180006676.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00188-CR

IN RE REGINALD D. REECE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Reginald Reece has asked this Court to compel the trial court to grant relief in 

the form of jail days served before Reece’s conviction. Reece argues he is entitled to credit for 

time served when he was incarcerated on a Cass County conviction, while a hold was in place for 

a charge against him in Bowie County.1

 Because we find Reece has received the relief he seeks, 

we dismiss his petition as moot. 

The standard for mandamus relief articulated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

requires the relator to establish that (1) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged 

harm and (2) only a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judicial decision, is being sought. State 

ex. rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Reece’s burden to 

properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant 

for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).

In its Third Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, the trial court credited Reece with 801 days of jailtime credits. Reece then filed this petition for writ of mandamus asserting that he is entitled to 

another year of jail-time credits. Subsequent to the filing of Reece’s petition, the trial court entered 

a Fourth Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc granting Reece credit for 1,170 days served toward his sentence 

 1

Reece was ultimately convicted in Bowie County for theft with prior convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 31.03(E)(4)(d). He pled true to sentencing enhancement allegations and was sentenced to twenty years’

confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(b). This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Reece 

v. State, 474 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.). 
3

of twenty years. The trial court’s Fourth Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc reflects an increase of 369 days 

jail-time credits over the amount previously granted in its Third Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc.

Accordingly, the trial court granted Reece the relief he requests in his petition.

Reece having obtained the relief sought before this Court, we deny the petition as moot. 

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: October 10, 2019

Date Decided: October 11, 2019

Do Not Publish
No. 96-5770.

#### Donovan *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          87,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    243,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               580,682
<PP&E>                                         344,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,452,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,347,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,374
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,452,212
<SALES>                                      1,194,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,194,480
<CGS>                                        1,061,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,061,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               497,960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (405,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (405,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (405,895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)




</TABLE>
**TRENCH ELECTRIC B.V. - FORM 20-F Equivalent**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Howard Poulson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F Equivalent ofTrench Electric B.V.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: March 24, 2004    /s/ Howard Poulson  Howard Poulson *Chief Executive*
EXHIBIT 21.1

            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                     STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
                                           INCORPORATION OR
            NAME                             ORGANIZATION

   1.  ClassroomDirect.com, LLC                Delaware
   2.  Childcraft Education Corp.              New York
   3.  Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.           New Jersey
   4.  Don Gresswell, Ltd.                  United Kingdom
   5.  Sportime Acquisition Inc.               Delaware
   6.  Sportime, LLC                           Delaware
   7.  SSI Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc.        Delaware
   8.  Global Video, LLC                       Arizona
   9.  JuneBox.com, Inc.                      Wisconsin
Exhibit 32.2



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
                         OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         (required by Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


In connection  with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended June
30, 2003 of Union Electric  Company (the "Company") as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the "Form  10-Q"),  I, Warner L.
Baxter, chief financial officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Form 10-Q fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 14, 2003



                                            /s/ Warner L. Baxter
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Warner L. Baxter
                                            Senior Vice President, Finance
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)




A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in the  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Union Electric  Company
and will be retained by Union  Electric  Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       55
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   685
<PP&E>                                            9764
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           377
<OTHER-SE>                                         625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3358
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (639)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8056.

Entered at Philadelphia, Pa.

Entry Nos. 6603; 606.

(Decided October 4, 1951)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” hereto attached and made part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value was, in each instance, the appraised value, ■.less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

*458Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed. ' ' •

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 325 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.325
                                                 Agreed to June 12, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas the Mackinac Island State Park Commission was created, in 1895, 
  to care for and manage Mackinac Island State Park;

Whereas Michilimackinac State Park and Mill Creek State Park were later 
  added to the family of parks and historic sites under the authority 
  of the Commission;

Whereas, in 1958, Michigan granted authority to the Commission to 
  restore and interpret Fort Mackinac and other historical properties 
  at the Straits of Mackinac;

Whereas, in 1958, the Commission began restoration, installed exhibits, 
  and opened Fort Mackinac to the public;

Whereas, in 1959, the Commission began archaeological excavation of 
  Colonial Michilimackinac and opened it to the public one year later;

Whereas, in 1984, the Commission opened Historic Mill Creek Discovery 
  Park;

Whereas, in 2004, after 14 years of being closed, Old Mackinac Point 
  Lighthouse was reopened with an ongoing restoration program;

Whereas, for 50 years, the Commission has professionally and 
  successfully developed, promoted, and improved the Mackinac State 
  Historic Parks complex, which has been continuously recognized by the 
  American Association of Museums; and

Whereas the Mackinac State Historic Parks complex has hosted more than 
  10,000,000 visitors since 1958, making it one of the most successful 
  historic site complexes in North America and an important contributor 
  to the tourism economy of northern Michigan: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
        (1) celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Mackinac Island 
    State Park Commission's Historical Preservation and Museum Program; 
    and
        (2) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to 
    the Mackinac Island State Park Commission as evidence of the 
    Commission successfully fulfilling its mission to protect, 
    preserve, and present the historical and natural wonders of 
    Mackinac Island.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

US LEC of North Carolina Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC of Georgia Inc. (Delaware Corporation)

US LEC of Tennessee Inc. (Delaware Corporation)

US LEC of Florida Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC of South Carolina Inc. (Delaware Corporation)

US LEC of Alabama Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC of Maryland Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC of Pennsylvania Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC Communications Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)

US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. (Delaware Limited Liability Company)

US LEC Acquisition Co. (North Carolina Corporation)