alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Biagio MANDALA, Appellant, v. Arnold SARROW and Donald Deutsch d/b/a Sarrow-Deutsch Agency, and the Franklin Life Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 69-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1970.

Henry L. Kaye, of Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for appellant.

Davis W. Duke, Jr., of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee-Franklin Life.

PER CURIAM.

The third party defendant, The Franklin Life Insurance Company, enjoyed the entry of summary final judgment in its favor as concerns the claim made against it by the defendant in the main action, Biagio Mandala. Mandala appeals. The company was brought into the case under Third Party Practice, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.180(a), 30 F.S.A. But it is manifest from the pleadings and the mentioned rule that the company was improperly before the court because the company was in nowise liable to the defendant, Mandala, for the claim made against Mandala by the plaintiffs in the main action. We gratuitously observe that the company could not be brought into court under Section (h), Additional Parties May be Brought In, found in Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.170, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims, because as reflected in the record, such joinder deprives the Court of Record in and for Broward County, Florida, of jurisdiction of the action.

We are aware that the point on appeal is primarily concerned with whether there were genuine issues of material fact which would prohibit entry of the summary final judgment. Although being of the opinion that such existed, we do not plumb them, but choose to address ourselves to the more fundamental question which, we believe, will aid in the ultimate disposition of this case in accordance with law. For instance, if we should merely reverse, upon conclusion of the case the company could successfully appeal the trial court’s action in denying its motion to dismiss because of its improper joinder under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.180.

In light of the circumstances and our understanding of the law the summary *15judgment here appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion to dismiss of the third party defendant, The Franklin Life Insurance Company. This is to be without prejudice to the right of the defendant, Biagio Mandala, to file such independent proceeding against the company as he may be advised.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Collective Bargaining Provisions : Safety, Health, and Sanitation

              																	Weiss, Abraham, 1913-					 and 	Theodore, Rose. 						*Collective Bargaining Provisions : Safety, Health, and Sanitation : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 908-14*,												Washington, D.C.: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										1949,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4402,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-517-000]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 8, 1997, Paiute Pipeline Company 
(Paiute) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheet, to become effective 
October 8, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 116

    Paiute states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's Order No. 636-C, Order on Remand, issued February 27, 1997 
in Docket Nos. RM91-11-006, et al. Paiute states that it has revised 
its right-of-first-refusal tariff provisions to reduce the term cap for 
matching a competitive bid from twenty years to five years, consistent 
with the requirements of Order No. 636-C.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24458 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANCIS ORDEAN REESE, :

:

 Plaintiff, : No. 4:04-CV-1103

:

vs. : Petition Filed 05/19/04

:

JAMES L. GRACE, PAUL DEAN, and : (Judge Muir)

GERALD R. PAPPERT, :

: 

Respondents : (Magistrate Judge Mannion)

ORDER

June 8, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On May 19, 2004, Petitioner Francis Ordean Reese initiated

this matter by filing a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Reese paid the required $5.00 filing fee. On May

20, 2005, we issued an order in which we denied Reese’s habeas

corpus petition and concluded that no certificate of

appealability should be issued.

On June 8, 2005, Reese filed a notice of appeal from the May

20, 2005, order, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis. A total of $255.00, consisting of a $5.00 filing fee

and $250.00 docketing fee, is charged to file an appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 1913 (authorizing Judicial Conference of the United

States to prescribe fees and describing those fees). 

In his motion Reese states that he makes “approximately

$129.00 per month for his work within the prison.” (Motion to

Case 4:04-cv-01103-MM Document 30 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 3
2

appeal in forma pauperis, p. 1) The only other information Reese

provides regarding his finances is the statement that he “does

not have the funds necessary to pay the fees and/or costs of the

appeal.” (Id.) None of that information has been provided in the

form of an affidavit or sworn statement.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, entitled “Proceeding

in Forma Pauperis,” requires Reese to file in connection with his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis “an affidavit that ... shows

in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the

party’s inability to pay ....” Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1)(A). Perhaps

the most relevant portion of Form 4 in the context of this case

is that which requires the party seeking to proceed in forma

pauperis to identify the balances in all of that party’s

financial accounts. 

The information contained in Reese’s motion is not nearly

sufficient to fulfill the requirements imposed upon him by the

above rule. Reese has failed to provide any information

whatsoever about his inmate or other financial account or

accounts. For that reason we will deny his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

We will deny the motion without prejudice to Reese’s right

to file another motion to proceed in forma pauperis which

includes all of the information required by Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 24.

Case 4:04-cv-01103-MM Document 30 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 3
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Reese’s “Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis”

(Document 29) is denied without prejudice.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Court

MM:ga

Case 4:04-cv-01103-MM Document 30 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICHARD V. NGUYEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50611

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00796-ABC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2014 ** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Richard V. Nguyen appeals from the revocation of supervised release and

12-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Nguyen’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

FILED

MAY 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
provided Nguyen the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50611
### JCX-65-18 (July 19, 2018)

Technical Explanation Of The "Taxpayer First Act Of 2018

Download Now

## Related Publications

                -  JCX-44-24 (September 10, 2024)  Description Of The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 190, The “Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act”  view details 
                -  JCX-42-24 (September 10, 2024)  Description Of The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 9495, The “Stop Terror-Financing And Tax Penalties On American Hostages Act”  view details 
                -  JCX-39-24 (September 09, 2024)  Description Of H.R. 190, The “Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act”  view details 

                  - Revenue Estimates
                  - Technical Explanations

                  - Tax Admin., Compliance & Penalties
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-478-000]


ANR Storage Company, Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

August 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 26, 1997, ANR Storage Company (ANRS) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1, Second Revised Sheet No. 147, to be effective October 1, 1997.
    ANRS states that the attached tariff sheet is being filed in 
compliance with the Commission's Order No. 636-C issued on February 27, 
1997, at Docket Nos. RM91-11-006 and RM87-34-072. ANRS states that the 
tariff sheet incorporates the new right-of-first-refusal contract term 
cap. ANRS also states since Order No. 636-C currently is pending 
rehearing at the Commission, ANRS reserves its right to change its 
right-of-first-refusal tariff provision to a contract term cap longer 
that five (5) years should Order No. 636-C be revised on rehearing, or 
as a result of any subsequent action by the courts.
    ANRS states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's Jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23555 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### MARTIN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO. v. FEDRICK.

No. 38479.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

═══════════════════════

Misc. Docket No. 20-9015 ═══════════════════════

__________________________________________________

TRANSFER OF CASE

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

TO THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

___________________________________________________

Pursuant to Tex. Gov=t Code ' 73.001, the following case is hereby transferred from the 

Court of Appeals for the Third District, Austin, Texas, to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth

District, Houston, Texas:

Case No. 03-20-00107-CV

In re Celina Jean Harp

The Third Court of Appeals will make the necessary order for the transfer of the case 

directed hereby and will cause the Clerk of that Court to transfer or transmit all filings in the case, 

and verify all orders made, to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Upon completion of the transfer, 

the Third Court of Appeals shall provide notice of the transfer to the Supreme Court and the State 

Office of Court Administration.

ORDERED by the Supreme Court of Texas, in Chambers,

With the Seal thereof affixed at the City of Austin,

this 11th day of February, 2020.

_______________________________________

BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 13, 2007



/S/    THOMAS H. RESLEWICThomas H. ReslewicChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



107
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 183 Filed 09/12/05 Page 8 of 8
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ERIC MENTAIL ANDERSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3286 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 6, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM HENRY RASCOE, :

:

Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:CV-05-1391

:

v. : (Judge Jones)

:

JUDGE JOHN H. CHRONISTER, et al., :

:

Respondents :

O R D E R

September 30, 2005

William Henry Rascoe (“Petitioner” or “Rascoe”), an inmate confined in the

State Correctional Institution, in Dallas, Pennsylvania, filed the above-captioned

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“the Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner did not name as Respondent the officer having present custody of Petitioner.

See R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.2(b)(“In such a case the officer having present

custody of the applicant and the attorney general of the state in which the judgment

which he seeks to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.”). 

By Order dated August 11, 2005, the Petition was returned to the Petitioner for

failure to name as Respondent the officer having present custody of Petitioner, see id.

2(e) (“If a petition . . . does not substantially comply with the requirements of rule 2 .

. . it may be returned to the petitioner, if a judge of the court so directs, together with

a statement of the reason for its return.”), and the Petitioner was directed to file an

Case 4:05-cv-01391-JEJ-DB Document 7 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 2
amended Petition on or before August 30, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 6). Petitioner was

forewarned that his failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order would result in the

dismissal of his case. Id. 

The relevant time has passed and Rascoe has neither submitted an amended

Petition, nor requested an extension of time within which to do so. Thus, this action

will be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to follow a Court Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

41(b). 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for Petitioner’s failure to

follow a Court Order. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

s/ John E. Jones III 

JOHN E. JONES III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01391-JEJ-DB Document 7 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-80537 and 333-88183) pertaining to Dave & Buster's Inc. 1995 Stock
Option Plan and Employee 401(k) Savings Plan of our report dated March 21, 2002
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dave & Buster's, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended February 3,
2002.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 13, 2002
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 213 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 213

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land 
                   to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) County.--The term ``County'' means the County of Rio 
        Arriba, New Mexico.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Alcalde 
        Proposed Land Transfer'' and dated September 23, 2004.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.

    (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary 
shall convey to the County, without consideration, all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in and to the land (including any 
improvements to the land) described in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in subsection (a) 
consists of approximately 171 acres of land located on the Sebastian 
Martin Land Grant in the vicinity of Alcalde, Rio Arriba County, New 
Mexico, as depicted on the map.
    (c) Reversion.--If any portion of the land conveyed under 
subsection (a) ceases to be used for public purposes the land shall, at 
the option of the Secretary, revert to the United States.
    (d) Conditions on Sales.--If the County sells any portion of the 
land conveyed to the County under subsection (a)--
            (1) the amount of consideration for the sale shall reflect 
        fair market value, as determined by an appraisal; and
            (2) the County shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal 
        to the gross proceeds of the sale, for use by the Director of 
        the Bureau of Land Management in the State of New Mexico, 
        without further appropriation.
    (e) Costs.--The County shall pay any costs associated with the 
conveyance of land under subsection (a).

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 213

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land 
                   to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.
```