alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hollis MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-82.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 10, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

An information was filed against the defendant-appellant for (1) uttering a worthless check, (2) grand larceny, and (3) buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. A non-jury trial was held and the defendant was convicted of uttering a worthless check and then sentenced to one year in the Dade County Jail.

On appeal, appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying the defense motions for continuance. “As a general rule, the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and the action of the court on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or, whereby his rights may have been jeopardized.” Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 82 and cases cited therein. The record on appeal in the case sub judice does reflect in fact that the trial court did grant several continuances to the defense but then denied defendant’s motions requesting further continuances. Thus, no abuse of discretion having been made to appear, appellant’s first argument must fail.

Secondly, defendant-appellant contends the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offense. We disagree. After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that there was competent substan*36tial evidence to support the judgment of conviction as to the commission of the offense and as to the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator thereof.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Anthony Duval WOODSIDE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-162, 71-163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.32

MORTGAGE #3362109701

     THIS PROMISSORY NOTE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made this 27th
day of December, 2002 by and between ST. MICHAELS BANK (THE "Bank") and DCA
of Vineland, LLC ("Borrower(s)").

     WHEREAS, the Bank has loaned to Borrower(s) the principal sum of
$700,000.00, balance now of $665,037.96, which Borrower(s) promised to repay
in accordance with the terms of a Promissory Note ("Note") dated November 2,
2000 secured by a certain Mortgage or Deed of Trust of even date therewith;
and

     WHEREAS the Borrower(s) and Bank desire to amend certain provisions of
the Note.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and
valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:

     1.  The facts set forth above are true and accurate in each respect.

     2.  The Note is hereby amended as follows:

         a.  Commencing on January 2, 2003 your monthly payment of principal
payment will be $2,216.79 plus accrued interest.

         b.  Commencing on December 16, 2002 the rate of interest will be the
Bank's Prime Rate Plus 1% floating.

         c.  Such monthly installments shall continue until the entire
indebtedness evidenced by the Note is fully paid, except that any remaining
indebtedness, if not sooner paid, shall be due and payable on December 2,
2007.

     3.  The term "Note" as used in the Note shall mean the Note as modified
herein unless the context clearly indicates or dictates a contrary meaning.

     4.  Borrower(s) will execute such confirmatory instruments with respect
to the Note as the Bank may require.

     5.  Borrower(s) ratify and confirm all of their liabilities and
obligations under the Note and agree that, except as expressly modified in
this Agreement, the Note continues in full force and effect as if set forth
specifically herein.  The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not
be construed as an agreement to extinguish the original obligations under the
Note and shall not constitute a novation as to the obligations of Borrower(s)
under the Note.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed under seal as of the day and year first above written.

WITNESS:

/s/ Gilda C. Gort                     /S/ Daniel R. Ouzts
---------------------------------     -------------------------------- (SEAL)
GILDA C. GORT                         DANIEL R. OUZTS

ATTEST:                               ST. MICHAELS BANK

                                      /s/ Clifford L. Hilk
---------------------------------     -------------------------------- (SEAL)
                                      SR. VICE PRESIDENT

<PAGE>
**Exhibit 24**POWER OF ATTORNEY     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below herebyconstitutes and appoints John C. East, Jon A. Anderson, and David L. Van De Hey, and each of themacting individually, as his attorney-in-fact, each with full power of substitution, for him in anyand all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Annual Report on Form 10-K and to filethe same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact,or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.     **Signature** **Title** **Date**/s/ John C. East President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal January 21, 2008 (John C. East) Executive Officer) and Director       /s/ Jon A. Anderson Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer January 21, 2008 (Jon A. Anderson) (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       /s/ James R. Fiebiger Director January 21, 2008     (James R. Fiebiger)         /s/ Jacob S. Jacobsson Director January 21, 2008     (Jacob S. Jacobsson)         /s/ J. Daniel McCranie Director January 21, 2008     (J. Daniel McCranie)         /s/ Robert G. Spencer Director January 21, 2008     (Robert G. Spencer)
#### James Arthur O’BRYAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-870.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

*546Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

By amended information appellant was charged with burglary of a motor vehicle in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1975). The information alleged the vehicle was “the property of Strazulla Brothers Co., Inc.” The proof of ownership relied on by the State was adduced through Joseph P. Strazulla, President of Strazulla Brothers Co., Inc. He referred to the vehicle in question as “my girl’s car” which he was driving on the occasion of the burglary. He also referred to the car as “my car” when describing the proximity of appellant’s automobile to the vehicle in question.

The recent cases1 holding that ownership is any possession that is rightful as against the burglar would seem to make it rather easy for the State to prove “ownership” of the burglarized property. However, the State still must prove the allegations as laid in the information. We find the proof here woefully inadequate.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

1

. *In the Interest of M. E.,*357 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); *Anderson v. State,*356 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *Dorsey v. State,*324 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
2nd Amend to Reg.'s Assoc. Stock Ownership Plan



 



Exhibit 10.11


Second Amendment

To the

Associate Stock Ownership Plan

(Amended and Restated as

of December 31, 1997)



     RESOLVED, that the Associate Stock Ownership Plan (amended and restated as
of December 31, 1997), (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by changing the Plan’s
name to the Associate Stock Purchase Plan effective as of April 1, 2001.
<Page>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.5.2

                                  March 3, 2003

Mr. Terry Walts
CEO
Presby Corp.
5910 North Central Expressway, Suite 1770
Dallas, TX 75206

       RE:    PRESBY CORP. RPO TERM SHEET

Dear Terry:

       This letter will confirm the agreement reached between CIBA Vision and
Presby Corp. regarding CIBA Vision's participation in the proposed transaction
described in the February 21, 2003 Second Supplement to the Confidential Private
Placement Memorandum dated October 29, 2002 (the "PPM"). Specifically, CIBA and
Presby agree to amend Section 2.2 of the License Agreement by and between CIBA
Vision AG and Presby Corp. dated March 6, 2002 (the "License Agreement") to
provide for the following in lieu of the existing subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of
Section 2.2;

       (i)    Upon the closing of the initial tranche of the Private Placement,
              including CIBA's participation therein as described in the PPM,
              the grant of rights to CIBA under the License Agreement shall be
              expanded to provide CIBA with exclusive rights to make, have made,
              use and sell Products (as defined in the License Agreement) in the
              United States for the treatment of ocular hypertension and / or
              glaucoma; and,

       (ii)   Upon the closing of the second tranche of the Private Placement,
              including CIBA's participation therein as described in the PPM,
              the grant of rights to CIBA under the License Agreement shall be
              expanded to provide CIBA with exclusive rights to make, have made,
              use and sell Products (as defined in the License Agreement) in the
              United States for the treatment of presbyopia and / or hyperopia.

CIBA and Presby also agree to amend Section 3.5(b) of the License Agreement as
follows:

       Subparagraph 3.5(b)(i) is amended by deleting the following "Except as
       provided in subparagraph (ii) below".

       Subparagraph 3.5(b)(ii) is deleted in its entirety.

The foregoing amendment shall become effective as of the Closing Date, as
defined in the PPM. The parties further acknowledge and agree that CIBA's
participation in the Private Placement in accordance with the PPM shall satisfy
CIBA's Initial Equity Investment obligation under Section 3.5(a) of the License
Agreement.

<Page>

       If the terms set forth above are acceptable to Presby Corp., please sign
where indicated below and return an executed copy of this letter to the
undersigned.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 /s/ Robin Terrell

                                 Robin Terrell
                                 Head, CIBA Vision Surgical Business Franchise

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


BY: /s/ Terry Walts
   ----------------------
        Terry Walts
        CEO, Presby Corp.

DATE:  3/3/03
     ------------------
**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|   | 1. | The                Report complies in all material respects with the requirements of                section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                        |                                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                             | /s/                STEPHEN CROSSON  |
|   | Stephen                    Crosson                                                          |
|   | Chief                    Financial Officer & Chief                    Executive Officer |

----
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 55 ) IV-C-2 1 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 55of 232P. 2

0 *
_ <* . ^ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y I *$m&1 § UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PRO ! \ ^m+J WASHINGTON , D.C. 2046 0 %PB0 ^ 4:.. ' JA M ! 9 !98 8

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Bil l Gran t Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Grant : Thank yo u fo r passing alon g the comment s o f Mr . Dou g Shelb yin behal f o f the Florid a Petroleu mCounci l concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n control s an d limitation s o n gasolin e volatility . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l be considere d in the nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . W e wil l als o be placing the mi n th e publi c docket s fo r th e rulemaking . Than k yo u agai n fo r you r concer n in thi s matter .

Sincerel yyours , 

### vSIGiNAL SIGNE D B Y RK-KA30D . WILSO N Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 Docke t A-85-2 1
Exhibit  23.1  CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-142325, 333-148317,
333-113500, and 333-127859) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-146155, 333-146154,
333-119607, 333-105842, 333-131416, 333-49852, 333-49856, 333-97523, and
333-97527) of Dyax Corp. of our report dated March 3, 2009 relating to the
financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.  /s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  Boston, Massachusetts March 3, 2009
#### George Clinton NELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1970.

George Clinton Nelson, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*129PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See State v. Davis, 203 So.2d 160 (Fla.1967).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ-, concur.
II 

Calendar No. 314 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3570 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 West Pike Street 

in Clarksburg, West Virginia, as the ‘‘Irene M. Keeley United States 

Courthouse’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 

West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, as the 

‘‘Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse’’, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3570 RS

1 SECTION 1. IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES COURT2 HOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 located at 500 West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Vir5 ginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Irene M. 

6 Keeley United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub10 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Irene 

11 M. Keeley United States Courthouse’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 314 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3570 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

Courthouse’’, and for other purposes. Virginia, as the ‘‘Irene M. Keeley United States at 500 West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-AGL-18]


Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cooperstown, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
which proposed to establish Class E airspace at Cooperstown, ND. The 
NPRM is being withdrawn because it failed to accurately describe the 
full scope of the intended airspace action. A new NPRM will be issued 
at a subsequent date.

DATES: The withdrawal is made October 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle M. Behm, Air Traffic 
Division, Airspace Branch, AGL-520, Federal Aviation Administration, 
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 
294-7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Proposed Rule

    On May 21, 1997, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in 
the Federal Register to establish Class E airspace at Cooperstown, ND, 
to accommodate a GPS Runway 13 SIAP and a GPS Runway 31 SIAP for 
Cooperstown Municipal Airport (62 FR 27705). The NPRM did not 
accurately describe the full scope of the intended airspace action; 
therefore it is being withdrawn. A new NPRM will be issued at a 
subsequent date.

Summary of Comments

    No comments were received.

Conclusion

    In consideration of the inaccurate description of the intended 
airspace action for Cooperstown Municipal Airport, action is being 
taken to withdraw the proposed establishment of Class E airspace at 
Cooperstown, ND. A new NPRM will be issued at a subsequent date.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace 
Docket No. 97-AGL-18, as published in the Federal Register on May 21, 
1997 (62 FR 27705), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on October 1, 1997.
David B. Johnson,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28945 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXHIBIT 11

                     COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         1996         1995         1994
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>          <C>
Loss from continuing operations       (7,783,713)  (4,120,554)  (1,721,628)
Loss from discontinued operations              0            0            0
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
Net Loss                              (7,783,713)  (4,120,554)  (1,721,628)
                                      ===========  ===========  ===========

Weighted Shares Outstanding           10,187,909    5,577,120    3,004,131

Net Loss per common share:
 Loss from continued operations            (0.76)       (0.74)       (0.57)
 Loss from discontinued operations          0.00         0.00         0.00
                                      -----------  -----------  -----------
Net Loss                                   (0.76)       (0.74)       (0.57)
                                      ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
# L_2005184EN.01002601.xml

| 15.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 184/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 184/26

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1118/2005

of 14 July 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 12 July 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 12 July 2005.

| (3) | The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 12 July 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 16,00 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004.

3

---