alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George WHITESIDE and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Joann JOHNSON and Joseph R. Johnson, Respondents.

No. 77-1315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

*760William E. Partridge of Dart, Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, P. A., Sarasota, for petitioners.

Michael R. Karp of Wood, Whitesell & Karp, P. A., Sarasota, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners herein make a rather persuasive argument for the proposition that the trial court erroneously denied their motion to dismiss respondents’ complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations. However, we decline to issue our discretionary common law writ of certiorari because there is a full, adequate and complete remedy available to petitioners by appeal after final judgment, should a final judgment adverse to petitioners ultimately be entered herein. *Robinson v. Klein,*350 So.2d 124 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); *Employers Fire Insurance Company v. Blanchard,*234 So.2d 381 (Fla.2d DCA 1970); *Gulf Cities Gas Corporation v. Cihak,*201 So.2d 250 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). *See generally,*Haddad, *The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida,*29 *U.Fla.L.Rev.*207 (1977) and the cases cited therein. Certiorari is not designed to serve as a writ of expediency and should not be granted merely to relieve the petitioners seeking the writ from the expense and inconvenience of a trial. *State v. Morey,*339 So.2d 1139 (Fla.App.1976); *Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc.,*287 So.2d 376 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek review of the matters contained therein by way of appeal from final judgment.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
DJI Phantom 3 Professional Checklist

Preflight:

WX conditions and Wind limits checked to be within tolerance (do 

not attempt to fly in winds exceeding 20km/hr)

Propellers securely installed, undamaged and not excessively bent 

(unbend by hand if necessary)

Camera lens cap and gimbal clamp removed

SD card installed

Fully charged battery installed and secure

Place Phantom on level surface away from nearby obstacles, into 

the wind and facing away from operator

Power-up:

Power on WiFi extender

Transmitter switches S1 & S2 in the UP position

Power on transmitter

Check transmitter battery level (solid green light)

Power on Phantom

Perform a compass calibration if your location has changed 

significantly (see manual)

Confirm WiFi extender has a flashing green system light

Open Wifi settings on your Android or Apple device and connect 

to Phantom_XXXXXX

Open the DJI Vision app and click CAMERA.
Before takeoff:

Confirm satellite lock and return-to-home point is loaded (rapidly 

flashing green LED followed by steady flashing)

Point aircraft into the wind

Confirm camera control and FPV by briefly tilting camera up and 

down

If recording video, push RECORD

Observers warned that Phantom is taking off

Takeoff:

Climb away from obstacles, into the wind and above head height

Establish a hover and confirm Phantom will hold position with GPS

Confirm FPV is streaming and adjust view angle as necessary

Note battery level and takeoff time

Mission:

Note time enroute and establish a “bingo time” when you must 

return home to have adequate battery to get home. 30% battery 

life is recommended by DJI .

CAUTION: Winds will affect this greatly, allow extra time to return 

if return will be into the wind

Maintain radio and visual line-of-sight (VLOS)

Utilize a spotter to maintain visual contact when available

Always verify recording status during the mission

Recovery:
Preferred recovery is by hand, especially on uneven terrain or with 

tall vegetation

Safety glasses or glasses offering ballistic protection shall be 

utilized

Establish a hover above head height and a safe distance away then 

move towards the Phantom and grab the landing gear

Once the Phantom is securely held above head level, hold the 

throttle stick to the down position for three seconds

Do not move the Phantom to below head level until the blades 

have stopped completely.

Postflight:

Power off the Phantom, transmitter and Wifi extender

Remove the SD card and secure

Any visible moisture present on the system shall be wiped off prior 

to storage

If moisture was present during the flight, do not seal the Phantom 

in the case for a prolonged period until it can be aired out in a dry 

environment for a minimum of eight hours

Charge the Wifi extender, Phantom batteries and ensure extra 

transmitter batteries are available for the next mission

Download the contents of the SD card, delete from the SD card 

and re-install into the Phantom
#### The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. TONA-RAMA, INC., a Florida corporation; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund; and J. Donald Jarrett and Elmo D. Jarrett, Appellees, and State of Florida, Intervenor.

No. 0-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### Grady Don POPE, Appellant, v. Bonnie LUNSETH, a minor by her next friend and mother, Myrtice Elizabeth Lunseth, Appellees.

No. L-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1











BY FAX:  414-765-2625

December 23, 2002

Mr. Anthony Maggiore
Director, Capital Markets
Bank One, NA
111 East Wisconsin Ave., 4th Floor
Milwaukee WI 53201

Dear Mr. Maggiore:

In accordance with Section 2.5 (A) of the $250,000,000 Credit Agreement dated as
of October 25, 2000 among Plexus Corp. and the parties thereto as lenders, Bank
One, NA, as administrative agent, ABN Amro Bank N.V. as syndication agent and
Firstar Bank, N.A. as documentation agent (the "Credit Agreement"), this letter
is to request permanent reduction in whole of the Aggregate Commitment (from its
present level of to $150,000,000 to $0 [zero dollars]), effective immediately.

Thank you very much.

Yours truly,




George W.F. Setton
Corporate Treasurer &
Chief Treasury Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00765

- CV

Don Batson Jr. , Appellant

v.

The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of MD Anderson Cancer Center and Karl Johnson, Independent Administrator , Appellee s

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C

- 1

- PB

- 21

- 001152 , THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on Febr uary 29, 2024

. After this Cou rt

gran t ed multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file his brief, appellant’s brief was

due May 6, 2024

. On May 24, 2024 , this Court sent a notice to appellant informing h im that h is

brief was overdue and that a failure to file a brief or motio n fo r extension of time by June 3

,

2024 , would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has

not filed a brief or a motion for further extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

for want of prosecution

. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).2 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 3, 2024
### C.10	Applicant’s Program of Projects Letter

*To be written by Applicant’s regional or state office*

Date

Division Director

Federal Highway Administration

[Division name]

[Address]

[City, State, Zip]

Re:/Subject: Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

           		Program of Projects Request Letter No: (number), (ERFO Disaster Number) 

           		(event name i.e. 2010 June Flooding), (event dates)

Dear [Division Director name]***:***

We request ***(initial/revised)*** Program of Projects approval for roads damaged in disaster [disaster number] which occurred on [d**ate]** as a result of a ***(natural disaster/catastrophic failure***) under our jurisdiction as summarized below.

Attached is our ***(initial/revised)*** proposed Program of Project's spreadsheet. ***(Submit the original Damage Survey Reports if not previously submitted.)***

We request that the [Division name] Federal Lands Highway Division perform the following work ***(includes description and site location.)***:

If you have any further questions, please contact [name], at [telephone number].

												Sincerely,

		Signature			

												[*Name*]

					[*Title*]

Enclosure: Program of Projects Table

cc: FLHD ERFO Coordinator, (FHWA Tribal Coordinator when applicable)
Exhibit 99(a)(1)


                      MASTER SERVICER AND SPECIAL SERVICER

                        ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE



Re:   Mortgage Capital Funding, Inc.
      Multifamily/Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
      Series 1997-MC1 (the "Trust")

As an authorized officer of CRIIMI MAE Services Limited Partnership, Master
Servicer and Special Servicer for the Trust, I hereby certify that (i) a review
of the activities and performance of the Master Servicer and Special Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated June 1, 1997 (the "Agreement"),
for the period ending December 31, 1997, has been made under my supervision;
(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer and
the Special Servicer have fulfilled all of their obligations in all material
respects under this Agreement throughout the aforementioned period; and (iii) no
notice has been received regarding the qualification or status as a REMIC of, or
otherwise asserting a tax (other than ad valorem real property taxes or other
similar taxes on REO property) on the income or assets of, any portion of the
Trust Fund from the Internal Revenue Service or from any other governmental
agency or body.

CRIIMI MAE SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

      By:   CRIIMI MAE Services, Inc.,
            Its general partner

            /s/  Maribeth Stahl
            By:  Maribeth Stahl
                 Vice President

March 9, 1998
AAM

- 1 3

- 3 84

- E June 06, 2013

Exemption No. 9945 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 09

- 0884

M s

. Deann Shier

Chief Executive Officer

Corporate Helicopters

3753 John J. Montgomery D rive, Suite #2

San Diego, CA 92123

Dear M s

. Shier :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9945

, as amended . It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limi tations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 8 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Corporate Helicopters, Inc. ( Corporate Helicopters ) for an exemption from part 120

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Corporate

Helicopters to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program while operating

under separate parts of the regulation.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in t he conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the reques ted exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Corporate Helicopters

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9945

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Condition s and Limitations

1. Employees of Corporate Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the

Corporate Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on October 31 , 201 5 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
#### Marion BECKOM, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,503
<INVENTORY>                                    39,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               95,501
<PP&E>                                         18,466
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                113,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          33,808
<BONDS>                                        28,378
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           66
<OTHER-SE>                                     46,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  113,663
<SALES>                                        86,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               86,959
<CGS>                                          71,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  71,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,405
<INCOME-TAX>                                      576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               829
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .13



</TABLE>
#### Dello YOUNG v. MILLERS OF JACKSON, MEADOW-BROOK ROAD, INC.

No. 49766.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Agnew, Agnew & Crawford, Lee B. Agnew, Jackson, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Thomas H. Suttle, Jr., Jackson, Terry R. Levy, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
NO. 07-12-0400-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 26, 2012

JOSE RAYNALDO BACA, 

APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE

_____________________________

FROM THE 287TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARMER COUNTY;

NO. 3101; HONORABLE GORDON HOUSTON GREEN, PRESIDING

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Jose Raynaldo Baca appeals from a trial court order denying his “Motion to 

Obtain Court Documents” for purposes of post-conviction litigation. He asks that we 

overrule the court’s decision and “instruct the court to present these documents to [him] 

in a timely manner.” 

On September 14, 2012, we sent appellant a letter asking to him to demonstrate 

why this court has jurisdiction over the matter and gave him until September 24, 2012,to 

do so. To date, we have received no response from appellant. 
2

An appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it is from a final 

judgment, Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001), and we have 

jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute 

explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 

(Tex. 1998). The trial court’s order denying appellant free copies of documents in the 

record for purposes of post-conviction litigation does not invoke our jurisdiction. Self v. 

State, 122 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2003, no pet.); Diaz v. State, No. 07-10-

00328-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1985, at *3 (Tex. App.–Amarillo January 21, 2011, pet. 

ref’d) (mem. op.). Furthermore, we have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of 

habeas corpus in felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 

Supp. 2012); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth 

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 

Without a final, appealable order, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this 

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Company's financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
     reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          59,097
<SECURITIES>                                   140,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,403
<PP&E>                                          79,364
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,612,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,292
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,545,071)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      1,069,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,069,338
<CGS>                                          815,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  815,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,708,486
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,249,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,249,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                273,400
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,249,482)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)



</TABLE>
#### LIPOFSKY v. FLATO.

No. 38049.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 902.
#### Benjamin ROSS and Gladys Ross, his wife, Appellants, v. Ethel F. BOWLING, Appellee.

No. 69-685.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

Kates & Ress, Robert P. Barnett, Michael A. Bérke, North Miami, for appellants.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, and George E. Orr, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was improvidently taken from an interlocutory order in an action formerly cognizable at law. We have elected to treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari. See Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 585; Aetna Insurance Company v. Jordan, Fla. App.1966, 189 So.2d 408.

The order presented for review denied the plaintiffs’ motion to join an insurance company after the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla. 1969, 223 So.2d 713. We think that under the established law this order was a departure from the essential requirements of the' law. See Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 495; Shipman v. Kinderman, First *416District Court of Appeal, 232 So.2d 21; Sherman v. Holzapfel, Second District Court of Appeal, 231 So.2d 550.

The order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is reversed with directions to allow the amendment.

BARKDULL, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The appeal papers presented to this court are void of any indication that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is in any way related to the case in the trial court, i. e., there is no showing that one of their insureds is involved in the instant proceedings. Therefore, I fail to see how the trial judge could have departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying the motion to amend the complaint.

I would refuse to consider the interlocutory appeal as certiorari and dismiss the notice of appeal as being from a non-ap-pealable order.
#### Josh SESSION, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

*856Philip G. Butler, Jr., of Foley, Colton & Butler, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

David H. Bludworth, State’s Atty., and Edward A. Garrison, Asst. State’s Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial on authority of *Session v. State,*Fla.App., 353 So.2d 854, Opinion issued *No-*would receive a return of at lease [sic]

DOWNEY, DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
#### Rudolph Valentine LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Roy E. Dezern and Walter R. Stedeford, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Enoch J. Whitney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree.

By his brief appellant presents ten points for consideration. We have carefully examined each of the points raised by appellant in light of the record of the evidence adduced at the trial but fail to find that any of them contain substantial merit sufficient to demonstrate prejudicial error or cause for reversal. The judgment of conviction appealed herein is affirmed. We purposely omit any adjudication with regard to the sentence contained in the final judgment as the question concerning its validity and regularity is the subject of another appeal presently pending in this court in a companion case entitled State of Florida v. Rudolph Valentine Lee, Case No. R-452, and will be adjudicated in the opinion to be filed in that case.

RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and DREW, Associate Judge, concur.
#### Tommy Wayne HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

From a careful consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, we fail to find reversible error. Therefore, the judgment and sentences are hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.