alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<CIK>                                               0001078724
<NAME>                                              Torbay Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                   1
<CASH>                                                         9666
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  1915
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              11581
<PP&E>                                                        43149
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 4733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               271486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        194319
<BONDS>                                                       13522
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                      70
<COMMON>                                                        510
<OTHER-SE>                                                    13065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 271486
<SALES>                                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  0
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             153045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (153045)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.03)



</TABLE>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.16 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Agreement Amending the 

Treaty of June 24, 1980 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the NETHERLANDS 

Signed at The Hague September 29, 2004 

with 

Annex 

and 

Exchange of Notes 
 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.” 
 NETHERLANDS 

 Extradition 

Agreement amending the treaty of June 24, 1980. 

Signed at The Hague September 29, 2004; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at 

 Washington September 29, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex and exchange of notes.
#### MURRAY M. SHELDON, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Stanley AZIF and Laura Azif, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 27, 1970.

George J. Baya, Miami, for appellant. Snyder, Young & Stern, North Miami Beach, Whitman & Wolfe, Talburt & Ku-bicki, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, Stanley Azif and Laura Azif, sued the appellant, Murray M. Sheldon, Inc. The gist of the complaint was *505the charge that Sheldon, an insurancagency, had negligently failed to secure for the appellees the insurance coverage they had requested hut had represented to the appellees that they were insured. The damages claimed were the consequences of an automobile collision which subsequently occurred and upon which the appellees were not afforded insurance protection. Appellees received a final judgment against appellant after a jury trial. This appeal is from that judgment.

The first point presented urges error upon the court’s refusal to admit into evidence certain written communications between Dade Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc., and Preferred Insurance Company. Dade is a second insurance agency through which the appellant had attempted to secure insurance coverage for the appellees. Preferred is the company with which Dade had attempted to place the insurance. It is clear that there was no privity between the appellees and Preferred; therefore the statements of Preferred were not binding upon appellees. Cf. Mizell v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 44 Fla.799, 33 So. 454 (1902). In addition we are not convinced that the documents were shown to be a part of the res gestae so as to be admissible under that exception to the hearsay rule. The question of admissibility under that exception is primarily a question for the trial court. Pride v. State, 151 Fla. 473, 10 So.2d 806 (1943). We do not find an abuse of discretion in the ruling.

The second point urges that the trial court erred in failing to rule that the appellees were estopped to claim they did not have the insurance coverage that appellant represented it had secured for them, because appellees stated in an SR 21 insurance form that they were insured by Preferred. The elements of an estoppel are not present. See cases cited at 12 Fla. Jur., Estoppel and Waiver, § 36.

The third point is without merit for the reasons stated in the discussion of the first point. The fourth point is directed to the refusal of the court to give a requested charge. We are not convinced that the charge was applicable to the issues tried by the jury, and the failure to give the charge is not shown to have been prejudicial to the appellant in any event. Therefore no error is demonstrated. See Karp v. Hodor, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 597.

The fifth point has been decided against appellant in the dismissal of a companion appeal. The Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review that dismissal. See Murray F. Sheldon, Inc. v. Azif, Fla.1969, 232 So.2d 179 (case no. 38,930, October 16, 1969).

Affirmed.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00472- CR

Jeff rey Sheldon B arnard, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2012 -51 2, H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D ME M O R A N D UM O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

J eff rey Sheldon Ba

rnar d has appea led his convi ct i o ns for sexual assault of a child and indece n cy wi th a child by contac t. Appellant’s brief was orig inally due Dec ember 31, 2014. The time for filing the brief was extended on appellant’ s counsel’s succe ssive m o t i o n s to Fe bruar y 1 7 , 2 015; Marc h 19, 2015; and April 20, 2015. On April 24, 2015, in granting a fourth extension, the Court order ed appellant’ s attorney , Andre a C. Polunsky , to file a brief on appellant’ s behalf no later than May 20, 2015. This Court cautioned that no further extension of time would be g rante d and that failure to comply with the order would result in ref err al of this case to the trial court for a hear ing. Counsel did not file a brief a s order ed. The appeal is abate d. The trial court shall conduct a hea ri ng to deter mine whether appellant desires to prosec ut e this appea l and, if so, whether counsel has abandone d the appea l. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8( b)(2)
. The trial court shall make appropr iate finding s and rec ommendations.I f nece ssary , the trial court shall appoint substitut e counsel who w il l e f f e c tively repr esent appellant in this cause . A rec ord from this hear ing, including copies of all finding s and order s and a transcr iption of the court repor

ter’s notes, shall be forwa

rded to the Clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental
rec ord no later

than J uly 13, 2015. Rule 38.8(b)(3)
. I t is ordere d on J une 10, 2015.

Be fore Chief Justice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Abated a nd Remanded Filed: June 10, 2015 Do Not Publish

2
#### COMMERCIAL CREDIT EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEOPLE’S LOAN SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13352.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1977.

*853Eric R. Harrington, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hayes, Harkey, Smith & Cascio by Louis D. Smith, Monroe, for defendant-appellee.

Before BOLIN, PRICE and MARVIN, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant personally liable for a debt because defendant provoked the judicial sale of property subject to plaintiff’s chattel mortgage. The trial court sustained defendant’s exception of no cause of action and dismissed plaintiff’s suit. Plaintiff appeals and we affirm.

Plaintiff’s debtor financed the purchase of a bulldozer, securing his loan with a chattel mortgage on the equipment. When its debtor became delinquent on the loan payments, plaintiff obtained a writ of seizure and sale pursuant to executory proceedings in Bossier Parish. However, the sheriff was unable to locate and seize the bulldozer because it had somehow passed into the hands of defendant’s debtor in Ouachita Parish.

In due course, defendant obtained a judgment against its debtor. The bulldozer, along with other items, was seized and sold to satisfy the judgment. After learning of this disposition of its security and more than six months after the sheriff’s sale, plaintiff filed the present suit for the balance due on its promissory note plus interest and attorney fees.

Plaintiff alleges defendant became indebted for the full amount of the note secured by mortgage on the bulldozer when it caused the judicial sale of the equipment and placed it beyond plaintiff’s reach. The petition does not allege defendant acted fraudulently to defeat plaintiff’s rights, but only that defendant received the proceeds of the sale of property which was subject to a superior mortgage.

Plaintiff apparently contends defendant incurred personal liability by tor-tiously converting property in which plaintiff claimed a valid security interest. Conversion, a wrongful act, cannot spring from the exercise of a legal right, i. e., execution on a judgment. See *Hopper v. Bills,*255 La. 628, 232 So.2d 296 (1970), and cases cited therein. Absent allegations of wrongful conduct, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted against this defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff’s security interest has not been defeated, since the bulldozer remains subject to plaintiff’s chattel mortgage in the hands of the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale. Louisiana Civil Code, Article 3399; Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5363; Plauche, The Pact *De Non Alienando*in Louisiana, 21 Tul.L.Rev. 238 (1946).

The judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
254 La. 932

#### Marvin PONTHIEUX v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 50185.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1969.

In re: Marvin Ponthieux applying for writ of habeas corpus.

On the basis of information furnished by the Attorney General disclosing that applicant has been released from custody in the State Penitentiary, the matter is moot.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

Number Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Unit Accessed Applicant County

MD-01 Assateague Gateway Trail

Scenic & Conservation 

Easements, Trail Head for 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail

National Park Service - 

Assateague Island 

National Seashore

Worcester County Worcester

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

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

Maryland 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 agreements. Funding for these projects is not guaranteed. Funding beyond FY 

2014 is dependent on reauthorization of the Access Program by Congress. The Maryland 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 Federal Fiscal year. If you have any questions please contact David Payne, 

Access Program Manager, at 571-434-1543 or email at David.Payne@dot.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Amended Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the National Institute of 
Nursing Research Initial Review Group meeting, which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 17, 1997 (62 FR 48880). The meeting 
will now start on October 30, 1997 at 8:30 a.m., instead of the 
previously advertised October 29.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.361, Nursing 
Research, National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: October 9, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-27442 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### John F. SAUNDERSON et al., Appellants, v. ST. LUCIE-JUPITER COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Appellee. John F. SAUNDERSON et al., Appellants, v. William H. MELVIN, Appellee.

Nos. 69-114, 69-115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1970.

Dean Tooker, Stuart, for appellants.

Ralph J. Blank, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee Melvin.

*79Scott & Tilton, Stuart, for appellee St. Lucie-Jupiter Co.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the briefs of the parties, the assignments of error, and the record on appeal and conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate error. The judgments appealed from are, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-0684 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-215-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 10 $2,550.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,550

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-00465-CV

Style: Darrell Julian and Ted Hennis v. Cadence McShane Construction

Company, LLC and Pinpoint Commercial LP, General Partner of PPC 

GP, LLC

Date motion filed*: June 11, 2015

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Clerk’s Record

Party filing motion: Appellants

Document to be filed: Clerk’s Records

Is appeal accelerated? Yes.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 28, 2015

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: May 28, 2015

Date Requested: N/A (15 days or such time as required by trial clerk)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On June 1, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent the trial clerk a notice that the clerk’s 

record had not been timely filed, and if the record was not filed within 10 days, to 

request an extension of time. Accordingly, appellants’ motion for a 15-day extension 

of time to file the clerk’s record is dismissed because the trial clerk is responsible for 

filing it, provided appellants have requested and paid for it, and this Court may extend 

the deadline to file it if requested by the clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), (c).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting

Date: June 18, 2015
∞ ○ ○」 0lo○ ○とe .堂上正 己> 鶉 ....罵 詐 巨と ♀京 こ くり ,」こ 〇〇 �半 と 山 ∑ ∑ ○ く」 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 

韓 ご 〇 〇〇 〇〇I くり (回 ⊂ e :こ くり し っ 格言 o .⊆ 十〇 こ 〇 二声 (寄 U j 〇 〇〇 くり 合 韓 書」 」= ○○ i,S“ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
#### Donald L. SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-45.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1976.

William N. Hutchinson, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAV-ERFIELD, JJ.

*1161PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of robbery and the use of a firearm in a criminal offense. On this appeal, he urges error upon several rulings of the trial judge during the trial. We find that the proof of appellant’s guilt was clear and evident and that the rulings upon which error is assigned could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Affirmed. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).
#### Donald R. McVEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-297.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 31, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IT OF TRANSPORTATION 

AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 

4111 AVIATION A VENUE 

PO Box 196900 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99519-6900 

PHONE: (907) 269-0730 

FAX: (907) 269-0489 

WEB: dot.state.ak.us 

June 25, 2010 

''•c;;> 

e> 

Mr. DennisJ. Deyany____ 

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: DOT-OST 1997-3134 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

This letter is to express support for the continuation of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program 

in Alaska and the crucial coimection it brings to our remote communities. 

Due to the isolated location of these communities and the complete lack of any road system 

connection, this subsidized air service is their only form of scheduled transportation. The 

communities of Chatham and Funter Bay depend on scheduled air freight, passenger and mail 

service for basic necessities, routine medical and health services, and economic welfare. 

The State of Alaska continues to assert that the local residents are best positioned to comment on 

particular ^hedules or aitLcarriers and therefore we leaveJJiose specificareas-for the community 

to comment on. 

I respectfully urge USDOT to support and continue the EAS service at Chatham and Funter Bay. 

Sincerely, 

Marc LuiJc^ 

Deputy Commissioner of Aviation 

cc: Leo von Scheben, Commissioner, DOT«&;PF 

"Providing/or the safe movement of people and goods and the delivery of state services.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

May 4, 2011 

ERRATA

__________________________

Appeal No. 2010-7080 

LIONEL GUERRA, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee.

Decided: April 29, 2011 

Precedential Opinion 

__________________________ 

Please make the following change in the dissent: 

Page 2, line 5, change “establishes” to --establish--