alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Scott CLEMENT et al., Petitioners, v. AZTEC SALES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 44287.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 31, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1974.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, TT., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Exhibit 12.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Carlos Aguirre Gomez, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Grupo Radio Centro,
S.A. de C.V.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered
      by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
      to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

      5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
      control over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2004

                                                /s/ Carlos Aguirre Gomez
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Carlos Aguirre Gomez
                                                General Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001078420
<NAME>                        ADVANCED GLASSFIBER YARNS LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         0                      12,385
<SECURITIES>                                   0                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,393                 41,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                      (2,621)
<INVENTORY>                                    24,378                 29,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,228                 81,478
<PP&E>                                         149,458                165,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0                      (11,935)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,476                470,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,494                 76,990
<BONDS>                                        391,250                351,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                      0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                      0
<COMMON>                                       0                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,932                 19,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,476                470,589
<SALES>                                        205,248                187,207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,248                187,207
<CGS>                                          134,820                132,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,820                132,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,193                 21,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0                      27,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                59,235                 5,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                   16,226                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            43,009                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                      3,616
<CHANGES>                                      0                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   43,009                 1,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0                      0



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,742]


Dana Corporation, Spicer Trailer Products, Berwick, Pennsylvania; 
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By letter of October 7, 1997, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance, applicable to petition number TA-W-33,742. The 
denial notice was signed on September 4, 1997 and published in the 
Federal Register on September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51151).
    The petitioner presents new evidence regarding customer imports of 
leaf springs.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of October 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-28248 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

VT-02 Mount Tom Gateway Community 

Trail Restoration

Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National 

Historic Park

Billings Park 

Commission of the 

Town of Woodstock

Windsor

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Vermont Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its initial, multiyear 

Program of Projects. The project identified for programming for the Vermont FLAP is listed below:

Vermont Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2013-2014

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. Funding for these projects is not guaranteed. Funding 

beyond 2014 is dependent on reauthorization of the Access Program by Congress. The Vermont PDC does not have a firm date for the next call for 

projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. If you have any questions please contact David Payne, Access 

Program Manager, at 571-434-1543 or email at David.Payne@dot.gov.
April 12, 2013

Department of Transportation

Essential Air Service

To whom it may concern:

As a major employer in the Lewistown and Central Montana region, we consider the Essential Air Service 

to be a program of significant importance to our business partners and customers, employees, local 

families and their extended families.

Living in such a remote area provides a number of special challenges, one of the greatest being the 

inability to readily and cost-effectively obtain transportation in and out of the region. The Essential Air 

Service, if operated efficiently and with the correct connection options, would maintain a traveler’s 

ability to connect to our nation’s air-transport system. Unfortunately, the decision to move the 

Lewistown connection to Billings, MT, has almost single-handedly killed the potential for success of this 

EAS station.

Century, its associates and their families regularly used the Lewistown – Denver connection when it 

existed, as it provided a fairly reliable and convenient means of entering the air-traffic system and the 

many carriers using DIA. We need it back!

The Billings connection has failed on several fronts. The reliability of the flights simply never 

materialized as promised. Add to this problem the unreasonable timetable, which ensured not just a 

late flight, but a cancelled trip if the Lewistown departure time was missed. We simply quit using the 

local airline due to its problems. In addition, Silver Airlines apparently did not provide the IFR approach 

equipment required for the new LVP approaches, and its pilots were either not trained for, or were 

prohibited by internal airlines rules from using, these very capable approaches in inclement weather. 

Combined, these factors simply killed ridership. The Lewistown EAS program simply could not succeed 

with the most recent combination of route and carrier.

Lewistown should NOT be removed from the EAS system. Rather, a LWT-DIA route should be reestablished and the bidding airlines should be required to provide pilots and aircraft capable of using all 

of Lewistown’s IFR approaches. Given these two changes, the ridership would grow substantially and 

effectiveness of the EAS program in Lewistown would be achieved.

Sincerely,

Tim Robertson

President & CEO

Century Companies, Inc., Lewistown, MT
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-10400) pertaining to the Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. 1999 Share
Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-7870) pertaining
to the Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. 1997 Share Incentive Plan, of our report
dated February 10, 2003, (except for the third paragraph of Note 24, as to which
the date is February 12, 2003) with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. and our report dated February 10,
2003 with respect to the financial statement schedule of Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 27,
2002.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Miami, Florida
February 20, 2003
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Revised alternate essential air service proposal for Manistee/Ludington, Michigan and discussion.
#### Willie Chester GREEN, Appellant, v STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-573.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 12, 1971.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Joseph F. McDermott, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Willie .Chester Green was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. This is the second time this case has been before this court and the facts are adequately set out in Green v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 397, cert. den. Fla. 1970, 237 So.2d 540. ,*. . , , , We see no reason to elaborate on that set 0f facts.

Appellant in this appeal assigns as error the trial court’s failure to give a charge on justifiable or excusable homicide. We believe the court cannot properly define manslaughter without explaining what justifiable or excusable homicide would be.. Hedges v. State, Fla. 1965, 172 So.2d 824; Wilson v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 903; Brown v. State, Fla.1960, 124 So.2d 481. In *Hedges,*supra, 172 So.2d at page 826, the court said:

> “In Graives v. State, 127 Fla. 182, 172 So. 716, a manslaughter case, we held that it is the duty of the judge to instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide. In Halfrich v. State, 122 Fla. 375, 165 So. 285, we held that it is always proper to instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide when defining manslaughter as a degree of unlawful homicide. The reason given was to enable the jury to understand the definition of manslaughter.”

Appellant also assigns as error the fact that the court increased the sentence in the second trial to run consecutively with a prior twenty year sentence on another charge. In view of our holding as regards the first point, it is unnecessary to make a determination as to the increase in sentence except to say that North Carolina v. Pearce, 1969, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, must be followed in sentencing in the event appellant is again convicted.

For the foregoing reasons this cause is remanded with directions that defendant be granted a new trial.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05550]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471; FRL-9924-36-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS26

Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Receipt of a complete petition; extension of public comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that 
the period for providing public comments on the February 6, 2015, 
receipt of a complete petition document titled ``Petition To Add n-
Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants'' is being 
extended by 60 days.

DATES: The public comment period for the receipt of a complete petition 
document published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 
6676), is being extended by 60 days to May 7, 2015, in order to provide 
the public additional time to submit comments and supporting 
information.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the receipt of a complete petition 
document may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the Federal 
Register document (80 FR 6676) for the addresses and detailed 
instructions.
    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 
The official public docket for this rulemaking is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0471.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, Policy and 
Strategies Group (D205-02), Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
Telephone number: (919) 541-0296; Fax number (919) 541-5600; Email 
address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period

    After considering a request received to extend the public comment 
period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period for an 
additional 60 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on 
May 7, 2015, rather than March 9, 2015. This extension will help ensure 
that the public has sufficient time to review the proposed rule, the 
supporting technical documents and data available in the docket.

    Dated: March 2, 2015.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015-05550 Filed 3-9-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3277 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3277

To amend the Marine Debris Act to reauthorize the Marine Debris Program 
        of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 2023

Mr. Sullivan (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Marine Debris Act to reauthorize the Marine Debris Program 
        of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL 
              OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.

    Section 9(a) of the Marine Debris Act (33 U.S.C. 1958(a)) is 
amended by striking ``for'' the first place it appears and all that 
follows through ``carrying out'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal 
years 2018 through 2028 for carrying out''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP OF OMAHA, Petitioner, v. Giraldo GONZALEZ, a minor, by and through his mother, and next friend, Lilia Gonzalez, and Lilia Gonzalez, Individually, Respondents.

No. 43899.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 345.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN DAVIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 05-202 Erie

v. )

)

DR. COLLINS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on July 1, 2005, and

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 30], filed on

June 29, 2006, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,

motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19] be granted. The parties were allowed ten

(10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by

certified mail and on Defendants. Plaintiff filed objections on July 27, 2006 [Doc. No.

32]. After de novo review of the motion and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19] is GRANTED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 30] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on June 29, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00202-SJM-SPB Document 34 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 1
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF EACH OF THE LISTED FUNDS:

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

                              DWS High Income Fund
                            DWS High Income Plus Fund



Effective immediately, the following information replaces similar disclosure
under "The Fund's Main Investment Strategy" in each fund's prospectuses:

Portfolio Maturity. The fund's dollar-weighted effective average portfolio
maturity will not exceed ten years. The fund's average portfolio maturity will
vary over time.






               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference


May 8, 2009                                               [DWS INVESTMENTS LOGO]
DTXIF-3601                                                   Deutsche Bank Group
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Doris HANCOCK et al., Appellees.

No. 71-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 9, 1971.

*308Howard Hadley, General Counsel, Geoffrey B. Dobson, Asst. Atty., and Barbara Ann McPherson, Asst. Atty., Tallahassee, for appellant.

William C. McLean, Jr. and John C. Vogt, Jr., of McLean, McLean & Vogt, Tampa, for appellees.

MANN, Judge.

The State Road Department sought review here of a discovery order. We denied certiorari without opinion. Fla.Stat. § 73.131, F.S.A. (1969) states that the condemning authority *“shall*pay all reasonable costs of the proceedings in the appellate court, including a reasonable attorney’s fee *to he assessed by that court,** * * ” (emphasis supplied)

The trial court assessed costs and fees after this court declined to do so, and the Road Department now claims this was error.

We thought Judge Pierce’s opinion in Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials v. Collier, Fla.App.2d 1968, 213 So.2d 460, following the First District decision in Smith v. Tallahassee, 1966, 198 So.2d 380, had made the proper procedure clear. The fee is allowed by legislative mandate, not judicial grace, and we have no right to ignore the statute. We do have the power to refer factual determinations to trial courts. Perhaps purists would insist that we must follow the cumbersome procedure of appointing the trial judge as a commissioner, in which case his findings would be reported and the costs order entered here. As a purely grammatical matter, the Road Department has a point. Common sense tells us that literal compliance is unworkable. For this reason, statutory specification of the forum in which costs are assessed is held *directory*and not *mandatory.*Smith v. Tallahassee, *supra.*

The trial judge did right. He followed the mandate of the statute in accordance with the procedure approved by this court. After this mandate goes down he will again determine how much the petitioner must pay for these proceedings.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.