alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Charles H. GREENBERG, Respondent.

No. 40561.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 28, 1971.

Patrick A. Podsaid, Miami, for The Florida Bar.

Charles H. Greenberg, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us for review of the Referee’s findings and recommendations, filed February 1st, 1971, which recommended that Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida.

The Referee’s Report reads in part:

> “After considering all the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that the respondent is guilty of embezzlement and forgery as charged in the original complaint and the second complaint except as to Count 5 of the second complaint to which charge the referee finds the respondent not guilty by reason of absence of sufficient proof of the charge.

> “RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT

> “It is recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint and particularly that he be found guilty of violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(3) (b) and Rule 11.02(4), of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule 1, 27, 28 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida.

> “RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

> “It is recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida. The misconduct of the respondent and the mishandling of his *323client’s funds and attendant forgery of their names to checks on such a large scale indicates that the respondent pursued a deliberate course of stealing monies from his clients, many of whom were in poor financial circumstances. His conduct was so reprehensible, callous and criminal, in the opinion of the referee, that simple disbarment does not appear suitable or a sufficient punishment for his crimes. It is therefore recommended that criminal proceedings be instituted against the respondent through the duly constituted authority.”

The record and recommendation of the Referee have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the recommendation of the Referee that Respondent Charles H. Greenberg is guilty as charged and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida be, and the same is, approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against Respondent.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1289

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD D. MEDLIN,

Defendant - Appellant,

DENISE M. SMITH,

Respondent,

HEARTHSIDE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,

INCORPORATED; EASTLAND DEVELOPERS,

INCORPORATED; GARDNER H. ALTMAN, JR.; MIDSOUTH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED;

MICHAEL T. MILLS; LANDFALL ASSOCIATES; LELAND

PARTNERSHIP; THOMAS L. DOWNS, JR., d/b/a Pro’s

Automotive and Sales; LAWYERS TITLE OF NORTH

CAROLINA, INCORPORATED; THE DOOR CHRISTIAN

FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, INCORPORATED,

Garnishees,

and

CYLLENE M. MEDLIN; EDWARD H. MEDLIN,

Individually; BROOKSTONE DEVELOPERS,

INCORPORATED; MCBETH & MOORE, INCORPORATED;

SUNBELT DIVERSITIES CORPORATION; THE KEYS

CORPORATION; EUGENE BOYCE, as Trustee of the

Trust of Amanda Nicole Medlin under the trust

agreement dated January 4, 1993; BUNCOMBE
2

COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; LEADER CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-93-104-7-BR)

Submitted: October 8, 2002 Decided: October 30, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard D. Medlin, Appellant Pro Se. Louie Franklin Elmore,

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South

Carolina; Daniel Lee Brawley, Sr., WARD & SMITH, P.A., Wilmington,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Because Medlin is a prisoner, his notice of appeal is

considered filed the day it is signed and delivered to prison

authorities. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

3

PER CURIAM:

Richard D. Medlin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) motion for relief from

judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Medlin’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

January 10, 2002. Medlin’s notice of appeal was filed on February

19, 2002.* Because Medlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
4

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Dulce S. ESCAR and Domingo Escar, Appellants, v. Joseph Peter SCHRUEFER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 70-1142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                         YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   DATE                                                             COMMON STOCK AND EQUIVALENTS
-----------                                                    ---------------------------------------
                                                               NO. OF SHARES          WEIGHTED AVERAGE
                                                                OUTSTANDING                SHARES
<S>                                                             <C>                    <C>
COMMON STOCK:
12/31/98      Shares Outstanding                                     10,357,096             10,357,096
11/99-12/99   Treasury Stock Purchase                                  (288,000)               (12,000)
                                                                     ----------          =============
              SHARES OUTSTANDING DECEMBER 31, 1999                   10,069,096             10,345,096

COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999:
              Options to Purchase Common Stock                          392,002          Anti-dilutive
              Redeemable Warrants                                     3,300,000          Anti-dilutive
              Underwriter Warrants                                      320,000          Anti-dilutive
              Non-Redeemable Bridge Warrants                            225,028          Anti-dilutive
                                                                     ----------          =============
                                                                     14,306,126             10,345,096
                                                                     ==========          =============
</TABLE>

Since the Company had a net loss for the period ended December 31, 1999, the
effect of any dilution from common stock equivalents would be anti-dilutive and
consequently not considered. Therefore, primary and fully diluted earnings per
share are the same as weighted average shares outstanding.

LOSS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

    Net Loss for the Year Ended December 31, 1998                $(9,611,738)

    Divided By Weighted Average Common Shares
    and Common Share Equivalents                                  10,345,096
                                                                 ------------
    LOSS PER SHARE                                                    $(0.93)
                                                                 ===========

                                      E-4
**Exhibit 10.23.1**

** **

**SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.23.1**

 

**WASHINGTON GROUP RETENTION AGREEMENTS**

**WITH NAMED EXECUTIVES**

 

**EACH DATED AS OF MARCH 14, 2001**

 

George H. Juetten

Thomas H. Zarges

 

 

**DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 16, 2001**

 

Stephen M. Johnson

 

NOTE:  Mr. Johnson’s Retention Agreement is identical in all materials terms to those entered into with Messrs Juetten and Zarges, with the exception that his Retention Bonus is prorated to allow for the time during early 2001 when he was not in the Company’s employ.  Mr. Johnson returned to the employ of the Company on November 12, 2001.

 

----
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, State of Florida, and Paul Pickett, Ralph Poe, Joseph W. Magee, Sr., Ben Benham and Sanford W. Padgett, constituting the members of said Board, Appellants, v. DR. PHILLIPS, INC., Dr. Phillips Utilities, Inc., and Harry D. Bertossa, Appellees.

No. 70-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 10, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Parker Lee McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
OTTER TAIL CORPORATION
CALCULATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
 Year Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009EarningsPretax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    81,912,596
    
    
    $
    77,855,302
    
    
    $
    81,928,914
    
    
    $
    50,161,916
    
    
    $
    21,425,878Plus fixed charges (see below)
    
    
    24,615,267
    
    
    
    26,458,342
    
    
    
    32,389,334
    
    
    
    36,082,847
    
    
    
    36,304,519Total earnings (1)
    
    $
    106,527,863
    
    
    $
    104,313,644
    
    
    $
    114,318,248
    
    
    $
    86,244,763
    
    
    $
    57,730,397Fixed ChargesInterest charges
    
    $
    17,637,279
    
    
    $
    18,789,945
    
    
    $
    22,384,136
    
    
    $
    28,094,844
    
    
    $
    27,622,443Amortization of debt expense, premium
and discount
    
    
    1,010,988
    
    
    
    945,397
    
    
    
    1,138,198
    
    
    
    1,020,003
    
    
    
    2,127,076Estimated interest component of
operating leases
    
    
    5,967,000
    
    
    
    6,723,000
    
    
    
    8,867,000
    
    
    
    6,968,000
    
    
    
    6,555,000Total fixed charges (2)
    
    $
    24,615,267
    
    
    $
    26,458,342
    
    
    $
    32,389,334
    
    
    $
    36,082,847
    
    
    $
    36,304,519Preferred Dividend Requirement
    
    $
    1,044,009
    
    
    $
    1,043,125
    
    
    $
    1,033,385
    
    
    $
    981,547
    
    
    $
    633,832Total Fixed Charges and Preferred
Dividend Requirement (3)
    
    $
    25,659,276
    
    
    $
    27,501,467
    
    
    $
    33,422,719
    
    
    $
    37,064,394
    
    
    $
    36,938,351Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(1) Divided by (2)
    
    
    4.33
    
    
    
    3.94
    
    
    
    3.53
    
    
    
    2.39
    
    
    
    1.59Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Preferred Dividends(1) Divided by (3)
    
    
    4.15
    
    
    
    3.79
    
    
    
    3.42
    
    
    
    2.33
    
    
    
    1.56
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period on Environmental 
Assessment (EA) of Tritium and Related Materials Testing on Public 
Lands in Ward Valley, San Bernardino County, California

AGENCY: California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Notice of 30 day public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) has prepared an EA of proposed plans regarding tritium 
and related materials testing in Ward Valley. The proposed plans were 
separately prepared by DOI/BLM and the State of California, Department 
of Health Services.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Public comments on the EA must be received by December 
8, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this comment period is to 
ensure that the public has sufficient opportunity to review and comment 
on all pertinent information on the impacts associated with separate 
federal and state proposals for testing for tritium and related 
materials in Ward Valley. The testing for tritium and related materials 
will be carried out to effectuate the recommendations of a National 
Academy of Sciences panel. Data obtained from the federal sampling and 
analysis, and from the State's if available, will be included in a 
draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), analyzing the 
proposed transfer of federal land to the State of California for 
construction of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EA may be obtained upon request. Submit 
requests to: Ward Valley Project Coordinator, 2135 Butano Drive, 
Sacramento, CA 95825-0451. The EA is available on the Internet at: 
www.ca.blm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Mills, Contract Officer 
Representative, U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management, California State 
Office, 2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento, California 95825, tel: (916) 
978-4636.
Duane A. Marti,
Acting Deputy State Director for Natural Resources.
[FR Doc. 97-29234 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P-M
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
 The Board
of Directors
 Citibank,
N.A.:
 
 We have
examined the accompanying management’s assertion that Citibank, N.A. (or
“Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Honda Auto
Receivables Owner Trust platform, which is comprised of the Honda Auto
Receivables 2007-1 Owner Trust and Honda Auto Receivables 2009-3 Owner Trust
asset-backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) excluding servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i),
1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities the
Company performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended
March 31, 2010. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii)
is applicable only as it relates to remittances.  Management is
responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
Company’s compliance based on our examination.
 
 Our
examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance
with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in this circumstance. Our examination included
testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.
Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors
may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report for the transaction specified above or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing
criteria.
 
 In our
opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2010,
is fairly stated, in all material respects.
 
 (Signed)
KPMG, LLP
 
 Chicago,
Illinois
 May 28,
2010
#### JIMINEZ v. VON ZAMFT.

No. 37666.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 210 So.2d 28.
Project Name Program Year State County Cong. District Applicant Primary Fund 

Source

Project Description Category FLMA 

Region

FLMA Unit Phase Delivered 

by

Total Program 

Amount (range)

ND FLAP CMC1329(1) LITTLE 

MISSOURI BAY ROAD FY19 ND Dunn ND at-large Dunn County FLAP

Roadway rehabilitation and 

pavign of the Little Missouri Bay 

Road from the end of pavement 

on CMC 1329 (92nd Ave NW) 

north for 2.5 miles to the Little 

Missouri Public Use Area.

3R

USACENW 

Division

Little 

Missouri 

Bay 

Recreation 

Area

Not Started CFLHD Between $1,000,000 

and $5,000,000

ND FLAP 136(1) & 145(1) 

TEWAUKON STRUCTURES FY20 ND Sargent ND at-large Sargent County FLAP

Replace two bridges providing 

access to the Tewaukon NWR 

with reinfoced concrete box 

culverts. 

Other FWS-6 Tewaukon 

NWR Not Started CFLHD Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000

ND FLAP 704(1) & 795(1) 

MAGPIE AND WHITETAIL 

ROADS

FY22 ND Billings ND at-large Billings County FLAP

Improvements to two low water 

crossings providing access to 

the Little Missouri National 

Grasslands. Other FS-R1

Little 

Missouri 

National 

Grasslands

Not Started CFLHD Between $1,000,000 

and $5,000,000

NORTH DAKOTA FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM - CYCLE 3 - PROGRAMMED PROJECTS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

March 22, 2010

RLJ Western Asset Management, LLC

3 Bethesda Metro Center

Suite 1000

Bethesda, MD 20814

Ladies and Gentlemen:

UST Reallocation

Reference is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of RLJ

Western Asset Public/Private Master Fund, L.P., (the "Partnership") dated as of November 5, 2009 (as the

same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the "Partnership Agreement") and

(ii) the Loan Agreement, dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A thereto, by and among the

Partnership, as Borrower, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent,

and The United States Department of the Treasury, as Lender (as the same may be amended, modified or

supplemented from time to time, the "Loan Agreement"). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein

have the meanings set forth in the Partnership Agreement or the Loan Agreement, as applicable.

The aggregate capital commitments of UST to the UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Securities Fund,

L.P. (the "TCW Fund") was $1,111,111,111.00, of which $44,500,000.00 has been re-invested in other

PPIFs. Accordingly, $1,066,611,111.00 remains available for reallocation, which equates to

$133,326,388.87 per each of the other eight PPIFs.

Pursuant to Section 3. l(g) of the Partnership Agreement, UST hereby consents and the General

Partner agrees to a UST Reallocation in the amount of $133,326,388.87 to the Partnership. The revised

maximum Capital Commitment of UST (the "Maximum UST Capital Commitment") and Maximum UST

Debt Amount (upon application of the definition of the "Maximum UST Debt Amount" in the Loan

Agreement) are set forth on Exhibit I hereto. Such allocation shall be deemed effective upon the date

hereof.
For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in the

Partnership Agreement, the Capital Commitment of UST shall at all times equal the aggregate Capital

Commitments of the Limited Partners other than UST.
TREASURY, as Limitea Partner and ~ender

UST Reaii.ocatiort getter, March "~v 2009
Acknowledged and Agreed to by:

RLJ WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

By:

UST Reallocation Letter, March 22, 2009
EXHIBIT I

UST REALLOCATION

Prior Capital Maximum UST Maximum UST Debt

Commitment of UST UST Reallocation Capital Commitment Amount

$1,111,111,111.00 133,326,388.87 $! ,244,437,499.87 $2,488,874,999.74
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3751 

To expand and modify the grant program of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to provide innovative transportation options to veterans in highly 

rural areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To expand and modify the grant program of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to provide innovative transportation 

options to veterans in highly rural areas, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Veterans Trans5 portation to Care Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3751 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF TRANSPOR2 TATION GRANT PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT 

3 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 Section 307 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus 

5 Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–163; 38 

6 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in the section heading, by inserting 

8 ‘‘RURAL OR’’ before ‘‘HIGHLY’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) by inserting ‘‘rural or’’ before ‘‘highly’’ 

11 each place it appears; 

12 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

13 (i) by redesignating subparagraph (B) 

14 as subparagraph (C); 

15 (ii) by inserting after subparagraph 

16 (A) the following new subparagraph (B): 

17 ‘‘(B) County veterans service organiza18 tions.’’; and 

19 (iii) by adding at the end the fol20 lowing new subparagraph: 

21 ‘‘(D) Tribal organizations.’’; 

22 (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘A State 

23 veterans service agency or veterans service or24 ganization awarded’’ and inserting ‘‘A recipient 

25 of’’; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3751 IS

1 (D) by striking paragraph (4) and insert2 ing the following new paragraph (4): 

3 ‘‘(4) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

5 subparagraph (B), the amount of a grant under 

6 this section may not exceed $60,000. 

7 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO PURCHASE

8 A VEHICLE.—The amount of a grant under this 

9 section to a recipient may be increased to an 

10 amount not to exceed $80,000 if the recipient 

11 is required to purchase a vehicle to comply with 

12 the requirements of the Americans with Disabil13 ities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) in 

14 carrying out this section.’’; 

15 (3) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) 

16 and inserting the following: 

17 ‘‘(1) RURAL; HIGHLY RURAL.—The terms 

18 ‘rural’ and ‘highly rural’ have the meanings given 

19 those terms under the Rural-Urban Commuting 

20 Areas (RUCA) coding system of the Department of 

21 Agriculture.’’; and 

22 (4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘$3,000,000 

23 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2022’’ and in24 serting ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
23





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation in this Form 10-K of our report dated March 22,
2010, except for Note 19 as to which the date is May 13, 2010, relating to the
financial statements of SSGI, Inc. (f/k/a Phage Therapeutics International,
Inc.), as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for the years then ended and to all
references to our firm included in this Registration Statement.




/s/
Mallah Furman





Fort
Lauderdale, Florida


May 24,
2010