alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Douglas STEVENS and Charlotte Stevens, Appellants, v. JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee.

No. 77-1106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1978.

*151Lapidus & Hollander and Howard J. Hollander, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellants, defendants below, bring this interlocutory appeal from an order dated April 28, 1977, entered by the trial court denying their motion to dismiss appellee’s, plaintiff below, complaint. We have concluded that the trial court erred by denying appellants’ motion to dismiss in regard to Count III of appellee’s complaint.

Appellee filed a complaint seeking to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property in Dade County owned by appellants. Among other things, it was alleged that appellants executed a mortgage on June 19, 1973, with appellee and that there remained due approximately $650 on the mortgage. It was further alleged that, subsequently, appellants executed a promissory note in favor of appellee in the amount of $2000 which was covered by a mortgage provision relating to future advances. Also, in Count III of the complaint, it was alleged that a corporation, Charwend, Inc., owned and controlled by appellants executed and delivered a promissory note to appellee for the amount of $15,869.26, and that in conjunction with this note appellants, individually, executed a guarantee of the note. Appellee then alleged that the guarantee of appellants was secured by the mortgage which was sought to be foreclosed.

In response to appellee’s complaint, particularly in reference to Count III, appellants filed a motion to dismiss. The basis of the motion was that the mortgage did not extend the lien on the premises to cover the guarantee and the Charwend, Inc., note, and that none of the instruments relating to such guarantee authorized a lien on the premises. From the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss, appellants bring this appeal.

Our review of this matter leads us to the opinion that the trial court should have granted appellants’ motion to dismiss in regart to Count III of appellee’s complaint. We believe that there were insufficient allegations in this Count to state a cause of action for the relief sought. See *Downing*v. *First National Bank of Lake City,*81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955); *Newman v. Greene,*92 Fla. 684, 109 So. 582 (Fla.1926); and 9 Thompson on Real Property § 4749 (J. S. Grimes ed. 1958). Therefore, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
**EXHIBIT31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Alan Treibitz, CEO, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Z-Axis Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures asof the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.June 27, 2007   /s/ Alan Treibitz Alan Treibitz  Chief Executive Officer  
 **
#### Harry J. JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2153.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Rubiera v. Dade County,*305 So.2d 161 (Fla.1974); *Brown v. State,*328 So.2d 497 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
Before the Third Division,

January 29, 1941

No. 45313.

#### Protests 924329-G, etc., of Morganstern Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### Attachment VII

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6(a) requires air districts to identify one or more potential control options that achieve at least the same benefit as the proposed rule, assess the cost-effectiveness of those options, and calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness. The proposed amendments to Rule 67.0 are based on the A ir Resources Board Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings. The only alternative that achieves at least the same benefit is the adoption of the final VOC limit s, effective 2005 and 2006 contained in South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQ MD) Rule 1113. The overall costeffectiveness of the final VOC limits in Rule 1113 estimated by the South Coast district is $8.18 per pound of VOC reduced. The incremental co st-effectiveness of adopting the SCAQMD VOC limits instead of the proposed Rule 67.0 limits is $10.49 per pound of VOC reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness is cal culated by dividing the incremental annualized costs by the incremental annual emission reductions projected to occur in the District. These calculations are summarized in the following table.

Table 5 - Calculation of Incremental Cost-Effective ness for SCAQMD Rule 1113 Final VOC Limits Option

SDAPCD Rule 67.0 Architectural Coatings
Baseline Inventory 10.3 tons/day Annualized Emissions Reductions 1.5 tons/day = 1,09 5,000 lbs/year
Cost Effectiveness $3.19/lb Annualized Cost for Proposed Rule 67.0 $3,493,000

SCAQMD Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings
Control Efficiency 46%
Cost-Effectiveness $8.18 Emission Reductions 4.7 tons/day = 3,458,740 lbs/ye ar Annualized Cost ($8.18)(3,458,740 lbs/yr) = $28,292 ,493

Incremental Impacts
Incremental Annualized Cost $28,292,493 – $3,493,05 0 = $24,799,443
Incremental Annual Emission Reductions 3,458,740 – 1,095,000 = 2,363,740 lbs/yr Incremental Cost-Effectiveness $24,799,443 / 2,363, 740 = $10.49 per pound
!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

"}

Ocoee #1 Dam

and Powerhouse

Ocoee Inn

and Marina

9 7 8

6

3 5

2 1

28

25

27

26

22

24

23

£¤64

4

1

29

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

"}

Ocoee #1 Dam

and Powerhouse

Ocoee Inn

and Marina

9 7 8

6

3 5

2 1

28

25

27

26

22

24

23

£¤64

4

1

29

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,00

F

0

eet /

Ocoee Reservoirs

Land Management Plan

Tile: a1

Aug 27, 2007

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\Maps\Ocoees_land_plan\Ocoees_land_plan_for_Web.mxd
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4931



# 
R ICKY J EROME B RANTLEY ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-02-87-BO) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Ricky Jerome Brantley appeals his conviction and sentence after he pled guilty to carjacking and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(2), 2 (2000), and aggravated sexual abuse and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)(1), 2 (2000). His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising the issue of whether Brantley received ineffective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to correctly inform Brantley of the sentence he would receive, and counsel’s failure to object to the introduction of a victim impact letter at sentencing. Brantley was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See id. ; United States v. Hoyle , 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4thCir. 1994). An exception exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. See King , 119 F.3d at 295. We find that the record in the instant case does not conclusively establish that Brantley’s counsel was ineffective. Therefore, we do not address this issue on direct appeal. Brantley may assert his claim in a § 2255 motion, if he so chooses.
In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record inthis case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Brantley’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the clientrequests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 2 U NITED S TATES v. B RANTLEYWe dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. B RANTLEY
March 2, 2010

DuPont Stine-Haskell Research Center

P.O. Box 80249

Wilmington, DE 19880-0249

Attention: Robert F. Oranzi

Manager, Environmental Services

SUBJECT: Cancellation of Facility Air Permits:

APC-82/068-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 3

APC-82/094-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 4

Dear. Mr. Oranzi:

The Department accepts the cancellation request dated February 24, 2010 as formal notification to cancel the 

following Permits, related to DuPont Stine Haskell Research Center facility, located at 1090 Elkton Rd. Newark, 

DE 19714:

Permit: APC-82/068-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 3

Permit: APC-82/094-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 4

Operation of this equipment after the date of this letter shall constitute a violation of 7 DE Admin. Code 1100.

These two permits will be deleted from the Title V Permit Renewal: AQM-003/00279(Renewal 2). 

Please contact Lupe Reynolds at (302) 323-4542 if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul E. Foster, P.E.

Program Manager

Engineering & Compliance Branch

PEF:ELD:GJR:gjr

F:\EngAndCompliance\GJR\GJR10028.doc

pc: Dover File Jack Sipple

John Outten Frank Gao
MEMORANDUM

TO: Paul E. Foster, P.E.

THROUGH: Everett L. DeWhitt, PhD.

FROM: Lupe Reynolds

SUBJECT: Cancellation of Facility Air Permits:

APC-82/068-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 3

APC-82/094-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 4

DATE: March 1, 2010

BACKGROUND

On February 26, the Department received a letter from DuPont Stine Haskell Research Center, signed by Robert 

F. Oranzi, Environmental Manager, indicating that Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 are inoperable and beyond repair. 

Therefore, the Company requested to cancel the operating permit or these two boilers: 

Permit: APC-82/068-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 3

Permit: APC-82/094-Operation (A1) - Boiler No. 4

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend sending the attached letter to the Company, confirming that the Department is cancelling the two 

permits related to Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 and deleting them from Title V Permit Renewal: AQM003/00279(Renewal 2). 

PEF:ELD:GJR:gjr

F:\EngAndCompliance\GJR\GJR10028.doc

pc: Dover File

Jack Sipple

Frank Gao

Karen Mattio

Dawn Minor

Joanna French

John Outten
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Diversified Properties Real Estate I's Year-End 1995 10-KSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000721673
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED PROEPRTIES REAL ESTATE I
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         867,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      12,376,279
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,579,125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,461,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      8,622,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,029,348)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,461,455
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,955,837
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,933,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             877,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    28.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
(4)(2)     Form
      of Common Stock Certificate

    


    NUMBER       SHARES

    ____________      _____________

    


    INCORPORATED
      UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    


    


    ATTITUDE
      DRINKS INCORPORATED

    


    Total
      Authorized Issue

    100,000,000
      Shares $.001 Par Value

    Common
      Stock

    


    THIS
      IS
      TO CERTIFY THAT________________________________________________ IS THE OWNER
      OF
      __________________________________________________ fully paid and non-assessable
      shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of the
      Corporation by the holder thereof in person or by a duly authorized Attorney
      upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

    


    WITNESS
      the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.
      

    


    DATED:

    


    


    __________________________     
                 __________________________

    SECRETARY        
                   PRESIDENT
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2409 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2409

 To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 
                 measuring approximately 10 mm or more.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 
                 measuring approximately 10 mm or more.

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

SECTION 1. LIGHTWEIGHT DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 10 
              MM OR MORE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Lenses designed     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        for digital                                                        31/2015.......
                        cameras, the
                        foregoing with a
                        focal length
                        measuring
                        approximately 10
                        mm or more but
                        not over 24 mm
                        and weighing
                        between 455 and
                        465 g (provided
                        for in subheading
                        9002.11.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

#  Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force visits DSCR

By Cathy Hopkins DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

People & Culture