alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sam INMAN, Dorothy L. Inman, and R. B. Lane Investments Company, Appellants, v. Rosette HAZAN, Appellee.

No. N-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1971.

John E. Houser, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Donald R. Hazouri, Jacksonville, and Robert W. Elrod, Jacksonville Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Henningsen v. Smith (Fla.App.1965), 174 So.2d 85; 32 Fla.Jur. 475, Trial, § 216.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

★ ●

●

● ●
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the registrant's financial statements included in the Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) for the year-end indicated below and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         213
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                   512
<INVENTORY>                                 14,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,791
<PP&E>                                      38,330
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             108,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,037<F1>
<BONDS>                                     49,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  8,482
<COMMON>                                         3
<OTHER-SE>                                  (8,597)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               108,496
<SALES>                                    134,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           134,583
<CGS>                                      108,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              108,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,471)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (7.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (7.27)

<FN>
<F1>Excludes revolving credit facility borrowings of $34,005 and current
maturities of senior notes of $24,962 at 12/31/98.
<F2>Includes charges to retained earnings of $14.5 million for redemption
value of and dividend accretions on preferred stock.
</FN>

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27329]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 
et seq., in United States v. Cleaveland Industrial Center, et al.

    In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 122(i), and Department policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 
19029, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States v. Cleaveland Industrial Center, et al. Civil Action No. 94-5500 
(WGB), was lodged in the United States District Court for the District 
of New Jersey on October 1, 1997. The proposed consent decree, if 
entered, will resolve the liability of Cleaveland Industrial Center, a 
New Jersey partnership, and Eversden L. Clark, Jr. (collectively, 
``Defendants''), under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), in 
connection with alleged releases of hazardous substances at the 
Fabritex Mills Superfund Site, an 18-acre parcel located at 20 Park 
Road, Long Valley, Washington Township, Morris County, New Jersey. 
Under the settlement reflected in the proposed consent decree, 
Defendants will pay response costs of $285,000 to the United States.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of publication of this notice, written comments 
relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed 
to Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. Cleaveland 
Industrial Center, et al., Department of Justice No. 90-11-3-1386.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Federal 
Building, Suite 700, Newark, New Jersey 07102; at Region I office of 
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New 
York, New York 10007; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, at the above address. In requesting a copy, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $4.00 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs) payable to Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-27329 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### Mary E. REAMER, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels, and Credits which were of Benjamin Reamer, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA *&*WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 166.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1937.

Anthony Sansone, of New York City, for appellant.

Douglas Swift, of New York City, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Hattie L. DEZENDORF, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 8485.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 19, 1971.

John Sheppard, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

James E. Moore, of Franklin, Moore, Beychok & Cooper, David Robinson, of Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thi-baut, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TUCKER, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

On October 29, 1970, a judgment dismissing an action was signed. There was no new trial applied for. On November 13, 1970, a devolutive appeal was entered from the judgment of October 29, 1970; the return date was set for January 7, 1971, and bond was set in the amount of $250.00. An extension of 60 days from January 7, 1971, was granted for the return date. Appeal bond was deposited on March 2, 1971. This matter is now before the Court on an order by this Court to show cause why this devolutive appeal should not be dismissed because the appeal bond was not timely filed.

La.C.C.P. Art. 2087.

> Except as otherwise provided in this article or by other law, an appeal which *202does not suspend the effect of or the execution of an appealable order or judgment may be taken, *and the security therefor furnished, within 90 days of:*

> (1) The expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial, as provided by Art. 1974, if no application has been filed timely; * * *.

“Thus not only must the appeal order be taken within the appropriate 90-day delay, but security must be furnished within this same period. Jones v. Brown, 201 So.2d 694 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1967).” Geisenheimer Realty Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Port of N. O., 204 So.2d 628 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967).

“Appellate courts do not acquire jurisdiction of appeals which have not been perfected by the filing of appeal bonds within the prescribed time and it is the duty of the court to dismiss such appeals ex proprio motu. Schouest v. Loewenthal, 58 So.2d 425 (La.App.Orl.1952).” Jones v. Brown, 201 So.2d 695 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1967).

Since the appellant had not filed the appeal bond until well after the expiration of the 90-day delay allowed by Art. 2087, this appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

QUEPASA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Charles B. Mathews, the Chief Financial Officer of Quepasa Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                        |  |                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: August 15, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Charles B. Mathews
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                  |  | Charles B. Mathews         
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Title:                 |  | Executive Vice President   
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                        |  | and Chief Financial Officer
# CLEARCHANNE L 

# ' •''^Sffl' ; ^ ^ OUTDOO R . - Augus t 20 , 201 0 Keit h Livingsto n Senio r Accoim t Executiv e Clea r Charme l Outdoor-Oc ala/Gainesvill e Divisio u 73 1 S W 37"

^ Aveiiu e Ocala,F L 3447 4 Jie : Smal l Communit

y Ai v Servic e Development

Gran t T o who mit

ma y conccra . Clea r Channel Outdoor , Inc . fiilly suppoil s th e Gaincsville-Alaohu aCount y Regiona l Airpor t Authority' s reques t fo r aSmal l Communit

y Aii " Servic e Developmen t grant t o help suppor

t th e new America

n Eagl e Airlme s servic e betwee

n Gainesvill e and Miam

i an d th e existin g loca

l ai r carriers . DeltaAi

r Line s an d U S Airways . W

e recogniz e th e importanc e o f au : sci-vic e t o economi c developmen

t an d th e qualit

y o f lif e fo r resident s and visitor s i

n .ou r region . W e wan t t o liel p ensur e th e succes s o f

th e new America

n Aii'line s servic e betwee n Gainesvill e an d th e Miam i hub . W e ar c ahead y workin g closel y wit

h th e Airpor

t Authorit y and matchin g fluids spent . Th e lac k o f a n servic e t o Sout

h Florid aand adequat

e connectin g servic e t o internationa l destination s ha s force d man

y t o commut e t o and fromothe

r ahport s o r

mak e th e exhaustin g 5 + hou r

tri p t o Miam

i by automobile . Additionally , American' s extensiv e domesti c and internationa l rout e structur e fromMiam

i wil l provid e new travel option s an d agreater level o f frequency. Du e t o th e critica

l importanc e o f

qualit y ai r servic e fo

r ou r region , w c ar c committe d t o supportin g American' s ne

w servic e an

d continue d improvemen

t i n air service . Therefore , "w

e wil l provid e matchin g spac e equivalent

t o dollar s spent

wit h Clea r Channel Outdoor-Ocala/Gauiesvill e Divisio n t o help America n Au-line s establis h it s ne w route between GN V and MIA . Wit

h reachin g ove

r 1. 2 millio n peopl e ever y fou r (4 ) weeks , w e believ e ou r

donatio n fo

r advertisin g wil l help mak

e the ne w servic e successful . I urg e yo u t

o proceed wit

h approvin g th e Airpor

t Authority' s reques t

fo r agrant t o assis t wit h marketm

g effort s fo r th e nex t tw o years . I

f yo u hav e an y question s abou

t Clea r Channe l Outdoor-Oc ala/Gainesvill e Division , pleas e fee

l free t o contac t me a t 352--479-693 6

/mgston \ Senio r Accoun t Executiv e Clea r Channel Outdoor-OcaWGainesvill c Divisio n KeithLiv i ngston@ClearChaunc l Outdoor.co m

CletrChtnne l Outdoo r 35 2 •^79'6300T. I

73 1 S\ C 37( h Avenu e • OciU , P L S^-l?- ! • iyivw.cle»rcli»nnel.co mPae e 6(i
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, and A. R. Truluck, Appellants, v. Mary WHITE and Bob White, her husband, Appellees.

No. 73-147.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1973.

Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellants.

Rood & Charlton, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A., and the judgment is affirmed. *See,*LaMonte v. De Diego, 274 So.2d 254 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973).

MANN, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 60 ) ll-K - (B ) -4 8 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:50AM Sheet 60of 325P. 2

II-K-(B)-4 8
CRITICA L REVIEW

O F MODE L INPUTS . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Jul y 30 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-4 8
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2




                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
RFS, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-03307 and 333-28849) on Form S-3 and the Registration Statement (No.
333-19411) on Form S-8 of RFS Hotel Investors, Inc. of our report dated January
23, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholder's
equity and cash flows of RFS, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997, which
report is included in the 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of RFS Hotel
Investors, Inc.




                                                      KPMG LLP




Memphis, Tennessee
March 27, 2000
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-315 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INVESTMENT GUARANTIES 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALDIVES 

Signed at Male March 15, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MALDIVES 

 Investment Guaranties 

 Agreement signed at Male March 15, 2010; 

 Entered into force March 15, 2010.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                   APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED) (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  SEPT. 30, 2000
                                                                ------------------
<S>                                                             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
       Shares outstanding at beginning of period                       24,424,628
       Weighted average shares issued during three months
       ended September 30, 2000 (410,566 shares)                          397,425
                                                                  ---------------
                                                                       24,822,053
                                                                  ===============

Net loss                                                          $   (14,224,369)
                                                                  ===============

Loss per share attributable to common stockholders                $         (0.57)
                                                                  ===============
</TABLE>

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

(1)  For a discussion of loss per share, see Note D of the Notes to the
     Financial Statements provided in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the
     period ended September 30, 2000.
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 report of FIIC Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ James W. France
----------------------------------------
James W. France
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
May 21, 2007


/s/ Wade L. Estep
----------------------------------------
Wade L. Estep
Chief Financial Officer
May 21, 2007
##### 



Exhibit 99.5

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 Quarterly Report of Seminis, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfonso Romo
Garza, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 (a) and (b), 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) 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.

/s/ Alfonso Romo Garza

Alfonso Romo Garza
Chief Executive Officer
February 10, 2003

21
#### Daniel L. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Daniel Hosstetter, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, and John Cecilian, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant was found by the police in possession of a radio which was stolen from a boat. He was charged with the burglary of the boat, and the larceny of the radio. He was also charged with buying, receiving and concealing stolen property: the radio. At the close of the state’s case in chief at trial the appellant moved for an order requiring the state to elect between the larce*741ny and the buying, receiving and concealing counts. It was the Appellant’s contention that it is inconsistent for the state to charge both that the accused was the thief and the “fence”, or somehow bought, received or concealed the radio. The court declined to require the election. The Appellant was convicted of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property.

In *Griswold v. State,*77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44, 49 (1919), it was held the accused cannot be required to answer to two inconsistent counts at trial and implicitly upon a proper motion by the Defendant at the proper time the state could be required to elect. In *Carlton v. State,*108 Fla. 34, 145 So. 249 (1933), our Supreme Court held that larceny and buying, receiving and concealing stolen property are repugnant to each other and if the jury finds the Defendant guilty of one of the two inconsistent counts reversible error is committed. See also *Mayers v. State,*126 Fla. 640, 171 So. 824 (1937); *Pearce v. State,*143 Fla. 347, 196 So. 685 (1940), *Tidwell v. State,*143 Fla. 397, 196 So. 837 (1940), and *Johnson*v. *State,*333 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976).

The radio the Appellant was accused of stealing was the same radio he was accused of having illegally bought, received or concealed. The motion for election was made at the proper time, at the close of the state’s case and before the Defendant presented evidence. Based upon the foregoing cases it is incumbent upon us to reverse the conviction of the Appellant and remand for a new trial on the charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.