alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O. J. TOOKE, Appellant, v. Melvin A. THOM, and Orpet, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-923.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 25, 1973.

John Turnbull of Wightman, Rowe, Weidemeyer, Jones & Turnbull, Clear-water, for appellant.

Harry S. Cline of McMullen, Everett, Logan, Marquardt & Cline, Clearwater, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, O. J. Tooke, appeals an order of the trial court dismissing counts two and three of his amended complaint. The effect of this ruling was to dismiss Orpet, Inc. as a party defendant to breach of contract action.

The amended complaint alleges on or about October 26, 1961, appellant entered into a written contract under seal with ap-pellee Thom. In this contract regarding resale of a certain realty, it was agreed that appellant was instrumental in negotiating the initial sale of the real property described therein on behalf of appellee Thom. The contract further provided that appellee Thom “or his assigns” would complete the purchase of the real estate and that upon a subsequent sale of this property appellant was to receive one half of all amounts over and above the original expenditure incurred by appellee Thom in acquisition of the property. Appellee Thom, pursuant to the terms of the contract, purchased the property. On or about February 13, 1969, appellee Thom, or his assigns, sold the property and refused to pay appellant one half interest in any profit pursuant to the contract. Count two of the amended complaint sought to include appel-lee Orpet, Inc., as a party defendant, on the theory that it was either an undisclosed principal or assignee of appellee Thom. The complaint further alleged that appellee Thom was the president, treasurer and a director of appellee Orpet, Inc. Appellees filed their motion to dismiss counts two and three on the grounds that a contract under seal is not enforceable against an undisclosed principal. The court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss and this timely appeal ensued. It appears that appellant has abandoned his attack on the trial court’s ruling as to count three by failing to argue it.

We have read the record and briefs, oral argument was waived. There being no allegation of fraud or other misrepresentations set out in count two of the amended complaint, we decide this case upon the long established and recognized law pertaining to the execution of contracts under seal.

On authority of McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 568, cited in the well-reasoned order of the trial judge, the cause is hereby

Affirmed.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### Frank WILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 18, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.46
March 8, 2005
Mr. John Paul Guinan, J.D.
     Re: Additional Compensation Arrangements
Dear John:
     I am pleased to advise You that in recognition and consideration of your service to theProxyMed, Inc. (the “Company”) the Board of Directors of the Company has approved severalamendments to your current compensation plan. This letter will confirm our agreement to amend yourcurrent Employment Agreement with the Company (“Agreement”), as discussed herein.
     1. Retention Bonus. In the event of a combination (including a tender offer, merger,sale or exchange of 50% or more of the outstanding capital stock of the Company, or sale of all orsubstantially all of its assets or otherwise) of the Company with another party or arecapitalization of the Company or similar restructuring (a “Strategic Transaction”), You will beeligible to receive a lump sum bonus payment (“Retention Bonus”) from the Company in the amount of$100,000. This Retention Bonus will be due and payable in cash upon the closing of a definitivetransaction (“Closing”), or in the case of a transaction involving a tender offer or other purchaseor sale of stock, when control of 50% or more of the Company’s outstanding common stock is acquiredby an entity other than a current stockholder. In order to qualify for the Retention Bonus, Youmust remain an active employee through the time of the Closing (other than termination of youremployment by the Company Without Cause), and cooperate fully with the Company in the completion ofthe Strategic Transaction. You should expect that in almost all situations, this bonus will befully taxable, and consult with your tax adviser for your situation. The Retention Bonus set forthin this paragraph is in lieu of and supersedes any prior arrangement between You and the Companywith respect to a bonus payable upon a merger, reorganization or change of control of the Companyor other Strategic Transaction, including the Merger/Buyout Bonus plan approved by the CompensationCommittee of the Company on January 23, 2002 (the “Existing Bonus Plan”). All bonuses previouslygranted by the Company to You pursuant to the Existing Bonus Plan are hereby cancelled andterminated.
     2. Special Bonus. In respect of your personal efforts on behalf of the Company duringfiscal year 2004, You will receive a one time bonus of $10,000. This bonus is in lieu of any otherbonus for 2004 performance (other than any applicable sales commission plan) will be payable in thenext regular pay cycle following the Company’s public release of earnings on March 16, 2005.
     3. Salary. Effective January 1, 2005, You will receive an increase in your basesalary of $10,000. You will receive a lump sum payment in the next regular pay cycle to coverretroactive increased compensation for the period between the date of this letter and January 1,2005.
 

 

     Kindly indicate Your agreement and acceptance of the terms of this bonus letter by executingbelow, and returning a fully executed copy of this letter to me at the address above.      Very truly yours,
#### Thomas KRASNOLUTSKY, by His Guardian ad Litem Jacob Krasnolutsky, and Jacob Krasnolutsky, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellanis, v. The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Peter ZUBE, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem Helen Zube, and Helen Zube, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 146, 147.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1937.

Rowland H. Long, of New York City, for appellants.

Clive C. Handy, of New York City (Kenneth O. Mott-Smith, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgments affirmed.
#### BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA, Appellant, v. Emma H. BIGHAM.

No. 10762.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1936.

James C. Jones, Lon O. Hocker, Frank Y. Gladney, and James C. Jones, Jr., all of St. Louis, Mo., C. Petrus Peterson and Robert W. Devoe, both of Lincoln, Neb., and Arnot L. Sheppard, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

W. C. Irwin and Sam Bushman, both of Jefferson City, Mo., and H. M. Atwell, of Eldon, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed, at costs of appellant, and cause remanded to District Court, with instructions to dismiss cause without prejudice to another action, on confession of error and stipulation of parties.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25231]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY24-2-172a; FRL-5892-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably 
Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogenfor Specific Sources 
in the State of New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve three (3) State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New York related to 
development of reasonably available control technologies for oxides of 
nitrogen from various sources in the State. In the Final Rules section 
of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revisions, 
as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views 
this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to 
that direct final rule no further activity is contemplated in relation 
to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct 
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a secondcomment period on this rulemaking. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this Federal Register should do so 
at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Ronald Borsellino, 
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 
Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Copies of the State submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air 
Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Gardella or Rick Ruvo, Air 
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: September 2, 1997.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-25231 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned, Alexis C. Korybut, the CEO and President of Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The Company’s First Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended September 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement on May 10, 2011.





/s/ Alexis C. Korybut


Alexis C. Korybut


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)








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





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
1 Gurdoglanyan, Nicole

From: Cassidy Cummings [irishmcass@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 1:23 PM
To: GovernmentAffairs Subject: Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing today to express my strong support for JetBlue’s application to offer new beyond- p erimeter service at Reagan National and link the nation’s capital to two other important ca pital cities: San Juan, Puerto Rico (connecting onward to St. Thomas, the capital of the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Austin, Texas.

JetBlue’s application will provide much-needed low-fare, high-quality se rvice from the capital’s downtown airport to the capital of our closest territory, and to the capital of the largest of the contiguous 48 states. Both San Juan and Austin are crying out for new JetBlue servi ce to DCA, being two of the ten largest markets without nonstop air service to the airport. Their application will bring tremendous public benefit and muchneeded low-fare competition to DCA.

Please join me in offering your support for JetBlue’s application.

Cassidy Cummings
Austin, TX irishmcass@yahoo.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      22,997,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              208,959,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                15,803,000
<INVENTORY>                                263,093,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           500,939,000
<PP&E>                                     255,207,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,298,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             982,672,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      143,502,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                       461,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 276,028,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               982,672,000
<SALES>                                    404,283,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           407,056,000
<CGS>                                      154,184,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              154,184,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           217,291,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          39,018,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                405,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   952,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (547,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (3,973,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,520,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
#### GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Edna KIETZER and William R. Kietzer, Appellees.

No. 70-371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 15, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### C. L. DRESSEL, Jr., W. Keith Phillips, Jr., W. L. Philbrick, Edmund P. Cooper, John A. Calvalier, William F. Dickinson, Edward J. Burke, Charles A. Whiteacre, and Henry Milander, Petitioners, v. DADE COUNTY, a body politic under the laws of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 38447.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 18, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1969.

Allen Clements, Jr., Miami Beach, for petitioners.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Stuart Sifnon, Asst. County Atty., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court of Appeal, Third District, having certified to us that its decision in the case of Dressel et al. v. Dade County, 219 So.2d 716 (1969), passes upon a question of great public interest, we accepted jurisdiction for review pursuant to Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.

After hearing oral arguments and carefully reviewing the briefs and the record arising from this cause, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the District Court is correct, and we hereby adopt it as the decision of this Court. Therefore, the Writ is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134555 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134555 COA: 275793 Charlevoix CC: 02-073009-FH JOHN JOSEPH SHULICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

t1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Memorandum

Subject: INFORMATION: Existing Roadside 

afety Hardware Eligibility Letters 

ffected by May 26, 2017 Mem 

Date: MAY 3 0 2018 S

A

From: Michael S. Griffith~~ 

Director, Office of Sa~ ol 

~ I In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1 

To: Division Administrators 

Federal Lands Division Engineers 

Directors of Field Services 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this memorandum is to update the FHWA Division Offices on the 

FHWA's implementation of process changes as described in the FHW A letter entitled 

' An open letter to all in the highway safety hardware and roadside design community,' 

dated May 26, 2017. 

The open letter described changes on how requests for Federal-aid eligibility letters for 

roadside safety hardware systems would be accepted. In order for manufacturers and 

States to qualify for a Federal-aid eligibility letter, all roadside hardware devices must 

complete the full suite of recommended tests as described in AASHTO MASH. These 

changes applied to both devices in the FHWA review queue and existing letters with 

requests after January 1, 2016. 

Manufacturers and States that had received an eligibility letter under AASHTO MASH 

but did not run the full suite of tests were required to run the remaining tests in order to 

retain the Federal-aid eligibility letter. The affected parties were provided one year from 

the date of the open letter to run the balance of crash tests and re-submit their request 

for an eligibility letter. 

BACKGROUND 

The FHWA notified all submitters with existing submissions in the review queue of this 

immediate change. The existing eligibility letters that were affected by the January 1, 

2016 implementation date and that have not resubmitted the full suite of tests as 

described in AASHTO MASH are as follows: 

1. B-268 Manitoba Constrained-Width, Tall Wall Bridge Rail 

2. B-269 Manitoba Constrained-Width, Tall Wall Median Barrier 

3. WZ-339 ConeLITE Synchro Lamp 
2 

Because these submissions have not completed the full suite of tests as described in 

AASHTO MASH, these submissions are no longer eligible for a Federal-aid eligibility 

letter as described in the May 26, 2017 open letter. As a result, the three eligibility 

letters listed above have been withdrawn. 

The withdrawal of these eligibility letters does not reflect on the crashworthiness of 

these devices; the submissions simply do not meet the requirements for how requests 

for Federal-aid eligibility letters for roadside safety hardware systems are accepted, as 

detailed in the May 26, 2017 memorandum. As a reminder, the Federal-aid eligibility 

letters are provided as a service to the States and are not a requirement for roadside 

safety hardware to be eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement. Therefore, a State DOT 

may still accept that one of the above devices is crashworthy based on their own 

determination that the hardware meets AASHTO MASH. 

Please share this information with your State DOT. If you have any questions, please 

feel free to contact William P. Longstreet at Will.Longstreet@dot.gov or 202-366-0087. 

CC: Safety Field
#### Mary E. BULTMAN, Appellant, v. James F. FISHER, Edward A. Grupp and Inter-City First Aid Squad, Inc., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellees. Edward A. GRUPP and Inter-City First Aid Squad, Inc., Appellants, v. James F. FISHER and Mary E. Bultman, Appellees.

Nos. 69-332, 69-345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 15, 1969.

Appeals from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Stewart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Aurora PACHECO and Ubaldo Pacheco, Appellants, v. Pedro M. RAMOS and Pan American Hospital, Appellees.

Nos. 76-2070, 77-149 and 77-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

West & Fowler and John Goodman, Miami, for appellants.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and Bradford Swing, Miami, Adams, George, Schulte & Ward and Richard B. Adams, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *City of Miami Beach v. Chadderton,*306 So.2d 558, 559-60 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Warriner v. Ferraro,*177 So.2d 723 (Fla.3d DCA 1965).
#### Johnnie POSET, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Robert E. Metzker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of St. Petersburg v. Calbeck, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 316.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7187

HARVEY E. TUNSTALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES BEALE, Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON,

Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-04-688-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey E. Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harvey E. Tunstall, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude

for the reasons stated by the district court that Tunstall has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Tunstall v. Beale, No. CA-04-688-1 (E.D. Va. filed, June 24,

2004; entered, June 25, 2004). Accordingly, we deny Tunstall’s

motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 

To the extent that Tunstall’s notice of appeal and

appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to

file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We 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.

DISMISSED
Description of Bonus for Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer



Exhibit 10.3 
 
Bonus Arrangement for Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer 
 
Fastenal Company’s Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer
is paid a bonus under an individual bonus arrangement. Under this arrangement, the bonus for any quarter is calculated based on the amounts by which the Company’s consolidated net sales and consolidated pre-tax income for such quarter exceeds,
respectively, the Company’s consolidated net sales and consolidated pre-tax income for the same quarter in the prior year.
No. 00-7057.

#### Young *v.*Sager et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.