alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel meeting:

    Name of SEP: ZDK1-GRB-6-J2.
    Date: November 19, 1997.
    Time: 7:30 pm.
    Place: Indiana University, School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill 
Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5120.
    Contact Person: Sharee Pepper, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 6as-25E, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, Phone: 
(301) 594-7798.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    This meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: August 28, 1997.
LaVeen M. Ponds,
Policy Analyst, NIH CMO.
[FR Doc. 97-23480 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 16
Case 04-02544-MBM Doc 24 Filed 04/21/05 Entered 04/21/05 16:20:46 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARRYL LEE CHERRY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vs. ) Civil Action No. 04-292 Erie

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

et. al., )

Defendants. )

O R D E R 

AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2006, the Plaintiff having filed a Motion 

to Dismiss (Doc. No. 39)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED. 

 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Courts is directed to mark this case 

CLOSED.

 S/Sean J. McLaughlin 

Sean J. McLaughlin 

United States District Judge

cc: all parties of record

Case 1:04-cv-00292-SJM-SPB Document 40 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 1
#### John J. WALTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 11;  Earnings per common and common equivalent shares

Earnings per common and common equivalent share is calculated as follows:

                                                 	November 30
                                             	  1996	     1995

Earnings per common and common equivalent shares:

Net income	                                  $  776,577	  $ 1,145,792

Weighted average number of shares outstanding	 3,805,528	   2,952,568

Net effect of dilutive common stock options and 
common stock warrants based on the treasury 
stock method using the period average market 
price of the Company's common stock	              11,602	      24,704

Weighted average number of shares and equivalent 
shares	                                        3,817,130	    2,977,272

Earnings per common and common equivalent shares	 $ . 20  	  $   . 38  


Earnings per common share, assuming full dilution:

Net income	                                   $   776,577	 $ 1,145,792

Weighted average number of shares outstanding	  3,805,528	   2,952,568

Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the treasury
stock method using the end of period market price of
common, if higher than average	                    11,602	       24,704

Common stock and common stock equivalents	      3,817,130	    2,977,272

Earnings per common and common equivalent share	 $   . 20  	$      . 38
No. 00-7434.

#### Kalu *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 21 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 22 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 23 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 24 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 25 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 26 of 27
Case 05-02271-BM Doc 52 Filed 04/28/06 Entered 04/28/06 15:11:17 Desc Main

Document Page 27 of 27
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1610 

To require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an inquiry into the 

retail price of gasoline. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an 

inquiry into the retail price of gasoline. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INQUIRY ON GASOLINE PRICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 14 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Com6 mission shall initiate an inquiry into the retail price of 

7 gasoline to determine if the price of gasoline (both before 

8 and after Hurricane Katrina), including the price of gaso9 line containing ethanol, is being artificially manipulated 
2 

•S 1610 IS

1 by reducing refinery capacity, by speculation in oil market, 

2 or by any other form of manipulation. 

3 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 14 days after the initi4 ation of the inquiry required under subsection (a), the 

5 Federal Trade Commission shall report to Congress the 

6 results of the inquiry. 

7 (c) PUBLIC MEETING.—Not later than 14 days after 

8 issuing the report required under subsection (b), the Fed9 eral Trade Commission shall hold a public hearing for the 

10 purpose of presenting the results of the inquiry. 

11 (d) ACTION ON PRICE INCREASE.— 

12 (1) FINDING OF MARKET MANIPULATION.—If 

13 the Federal Trade Commission determines that the 

14 increase in gasoline prices, including the price of 

15 gasoline containing ethanol, is a result of market 

16 manipulation, the Federal Trade Commission shall, 

17 in cooperation with the attorney general of any af18 fected State, take appropriate action. 

19 (2) NO FINDING OF MARKET MANIPULATION.— 

20 If the Federal Trade Commission determines that 

21 the increase in gasoline prices, including the price of 

22 gasoline containing ethanol, is not the result of mar23 ket manipulation, the Federal Trade Commission 

24 shall notify the Secretary of Energy. The Secretary 

25 shall, not later than 14 days after receiving such no-
3 

•S 1610 IS

1 tification, decide if expanded use of the Strategic 

2 Petroleum Reserve should be implemented to assure 

3 adequate supplies of gasoline. 

4 (e) TERMINATION.—This section shall cease to apply 

5 on— 

6 (1) the date the Federal Trade Commission 

7 makes its determination described in subsection (d); 

8 or 

9 (2) if applicable, the date of the decision of the 

10 Secretary of Energy under paragraph (2) of such 

11 subsection. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1997-KYZEN CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         523,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  839,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,160
<INVENTORY>                                    345,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,747,623
<PP&E>                                       1,421,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,001,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,068
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,445,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,001,757
<SALES>                                      5,877,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,877,974
<CGS>                                        2,536,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,536,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2804 

To restore protections for Social Security, Railroad retirement, and Black 

Lung benefits from administrative offset. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SANDERS, and Ms. WARREN) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To restore protections for Social Security, Railroad retirement, and Black Lung benefits from administrative offset. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Social 

5 Security Benefits Restoration Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2804 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY, RAILROAD RE2 TIREMENT, AND BLACK LUNG BENEFITS 

3 FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET AU5 THORITY.— 

6 (1) ASSIGNMENT UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY

7 ACT.—Section 207 of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 407) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(d) Subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of section 

11 3716(c)(3) of title 31, United States Code, as such sub12 paragraphs were in effect on the date before the date of 

13 enactment of the Protection of Social Security Benefits 

14 Restoration Act, shall be null and void and of no effect.’’. 

15 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

16 (A) Section 14(a) of the Railroad Retire17 ment Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231m(a)) is 

18 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘. 

19 The provisions of section 207(d) of the Social 

20 Security Act shall apply with respect to this 

21 title to the same extent as they apply in the 

22 case of title II of such Act.’’. 

23 (B) Section 2(e) of the Railroad Unem24 ployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 352(e)) is 

25 amended by adding at the end the following: 

26 ‘‘The provisions of section 207(d) of the Social 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2804 IS

1 Security Act shall apply with respect to this 

2 title to the same extent as they apply in the 

3 case of title II of such Act.’’ 

4 (b) REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET AUTHOR5 ITY.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

7 3716(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amend8 ed— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘(3)(A)(i) Notwith10 standing’’ and all that follows through ‘‘any 

11 overpayment under such program).’’; 

12 (B) by striking subparagraphs (C) and 

13 (D); and 

14 (C) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 

15 paragraph (3). 

16 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (5) 

17 of such section is amended by striking ‘‘the Commis18 sioner of Social Security and’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to any collection by administrative 

21 offset occurring on or after the date of enactment of this 

22 Act of a claim arising before, on, or after the date of en23 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
TS-B196Y2 - Chemical Structure and Name

Sanitized
#### Lawrence E. JOHNSON et al. v. J. Al AMISS, Sheriff, et al.

No. 11699.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

Lawrence E. Johnson, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison of counsel for plaintiff-appellant Lawrence E. Johnson in pro. per.

C. James Carville, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendant-appellee J. Al Amiss, Sheriff.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

CHIASSON, Judge:

This appeal was fixed for argument and all attorneys of record and the plaintiff in proper person were notified. At the time scheduled for argument, the appellant was not present or represented, nor had any *494brief been filed on behalf of appellant, nor had any motion been filed for continuance.

On authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b), this Court, ex proprio motu, considers said appeal as abandoned; therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESUS SOLIS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00007

- CR

Appeal from

120 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20130D02293)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 9 TH DAY OF DEC EMBER, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Charles Patrick MORAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### R. C. BURSE v. BOH BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Collins Thibodeaux.

No. 8311.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1977.

Writ Refused Nov. 4, 1977.

Bridgeman & Conway, James R. Conway, III, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Bannon, Ernest L. O’Bannon and David E. Walle, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Boh Brothers Const. Co.

Before SAMUEL, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ,

SCHOTT, Judge.

Plaintiff has appeájled from a dismissal of his tort suit against Boh Brothers Construction Company on a motion for summary judgment filed by that defendant.

Plaintiff, while hauling mud in his dump-truck on a construction project, was injured as a result of negligence of an employee of Boh, the general contractor. Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed on the ground that Boh was his statutory employer under LSA-R.S. 23:1061 with the result that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was in workmen’s compensation.

R.S. 23:1061 provides in pertinent part as follows:

> “Where any person . . . undertakes to execute any work, which is a part of his trade, business, or occupation . and contracts with any person . for the execution ... of the whole or any part of the work . . . the principal shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work or to his dependent, any compensation under this Chapter which he would have been liable to pay if the employee had been immediately employed by him . . .”

The affidavit of Boh’s vice president set forth the facts on which the motion for summary judgment was based. Boh *439obtained plaintiff’s services through a broker who employed and made available to Boh dumptrucks and operators such as plaintiff. This broker carried workmen’s compensation on the operators it furnished. Boh regularly utilized dumptrucks and operators for the purpose of transporting mud, utilizing its own fleet of dumptrucks to the extent that this was adequate and supplementing that fleet with independent operators, such as plaintiff, when necessary.

Under these facts which were uncontro-verted Boh would be liable to plaintiff in compensation and therefore not liable in tort. *Broussard v. Heebe’s Bakery, Inc.,*263 La. 561, 268 So.2d 656 (1972).

However, plaintiff contends that its relationship with Boh was that of vendor-vendee as in the *Broussard*case rather than principal-contractor. The facts of this case do not support plaintiff’s argument. Here, plaintiff’s services were utilized in the identical fashion as Boh’s own dumptruck operator employees. Plaintiff was not delivering materials purchased by Boh but rather was operating a dumptruck moving Boh’s material in the same way as Boh’s regular employees did.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
#### Fletcher EVERETT, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

*649Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken by defendant, Fletcher Everett, from a conviction of uttering a forged instrument and petit larceny.

Defendant first urges as reversible error the trial court permitting the prosecution to introduce into evidence handwriting exemplars obtained from him after he had been compelled to appear at the police station prior to the filing of formal charges in violation of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person.

The underlying issue of fact is whether these handwriting exemplars were obtained by coercion or were voluntarily given by the defendant. At the trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the handwriting exemplars on the ground of coercion. A hearing was held outside the presence of the jury and the record reflects that Officer Nelson, the lead investigator, telephoned the defendant and requested that he and his wife come down to the police station to discuss the case. Nelson also informed defendant that if he did not come, he would continue his investigation which could be the cause to have an arrest warrant issued for him. Subsequently, defendant and his wife did come to the station; however, since Nelson was on vacation, Officer Hughes advised defendant of his constitutional rights (since he was a suspect) and then discussed the case with him. Defendant and his wife also gave Hughes handwriting exemplars. Hughes denied making any threats or promises to them in obtaining the exemplars. Defendant did not testify and the trial court denied the motion to suppress.

The contention that defendant was compelled to come to the police station as a result of his telephone conversation with Officer Nelson is nothing more than mere speculation, and we conclude that defendant voluntarily went to the police station and gave samples of his handwriting to Officer Hughes. Cf. *U. S. v. Brunson,*549 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1977). Further, the determination of the voluntariness of the consent given by the defendant was a question of fact initially for the trial court to decide. There being substantial competent evidence to support the court’s determination of vol-untariness, we will not disturb this denial of the motion to suppress on appeal. See Ger*rard v. State,*345 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

We also considered defendant’s remaining points on appeal and find no merit therein.

Affirmed.