alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COLONIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation, and William Alfred Sadler, Petitioners, v. Janice Marie HILL, as Administratrix of the Estate of Menda Marie Hill, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 38427.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1969.

John L. Sewell, St. Petersburg, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for petitioners.

Charles J. Cullom, and S. Victor Tipton, Orlando, for respondent.

ADKINS, Justice.

Certiorari was granted in this cause to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, (219 So.2d 51) on grounds of direct conflict with the opinion of this Court in Epps v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 40 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1949).

Perdie Hill, the widower of Menda Marie Hill, sued under authority of Fla. Stat., § 768.02, F.S.A., for the wrongful death of his wife in an automobile accident. This issue was resolved in the defendants’ favor by a jury verdict and final judgment was entered for defendants.

The action sub judice was brought under authority of Fla.Stat., § 45.11 (now Fla. Stat., § 46.021, F.S.A.), by the daughter of Menda Marie Hill as administratrix of her mother’s estate for alleged injuries to Menda Marie Hill in the same accident involved in the previous action brought by Perdie Hill. The daughter was over twenty-one years of age at the time the judgment was entered in the prior suit brought by her father as widower of the deceased.

The District Court distinguished Epps v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., *supra,*in the following language:

> “There the court held that the widow was estopped by the adverse judgment in the wrongful death suit from maintaining a suit in her capacity as administratrix against the same party based on the same accident. Essential to the Epps case, as we understand it, was an assumption *that those persons beneficially interested in both suits were the same.*It was on the basis of this assumption that the court held the plaintiff in the personal representative’s survival action was estopped by the prior judgment in the wrongful death suit.”

The District Court correctly held that the judgment in the widower’s suit did not estop the daughter from litigating *482the personal representative’s claim and we approve its opinion.

The writ of certiorari is, therefore,

Discharged.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           1,863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    390,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               750,869
<PP&E>                                         358,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                 186,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 936,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          555,568
<BONDS>                                         79,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,762
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   936,509
<SALES>                                        561,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               561,696
<CGS>                                          518,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  518,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                       160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,071
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,071
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2190 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2190

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent certain 
programs that assist homeless veterans and other veterans with special 
                     needs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

 Ms. Brownley (for herself, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Panetta, Mr. 
Hastings, Ms. Norton, Mr. Khanna, Ms. Chu, Mrs. Hayes, and Ms. Newman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent certain 
programs that assist homeless veterans and other veterans with special 
                     needs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Homeless Veterans Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAMS ASSISTING HOMELESS VETERANS AND OTHER VETERANS WITH 
              SPECIAL NEEDS.

    (a) Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs.--Section 2021(e)(1) 
of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(G) $50,000,000 for each fiscal year after 2022.''.
    (b) Referral and Counseling Services for Veterans at Risk of 
Homelessness Who Are Transitioning From Certain Institutions.--Section 
2023 of such title is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (d); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
    (c) Treatment for Seriously Mentally Ill and Homeless Veterans.--
Section 2031 of such title is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (b).
    (d) Housing Assistance for Homeless Veterans.--Section 2041 of such 
title is amended by striking subsection (c).
    (e) Financial Assistance for Supportive Services for Very Low-
Income Veteran Families in Permanent Housing.--Section 2044(e)(1) of 
such title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
            ``(I) $420,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
        2022.''.
    (f) Grant Program for Homeless Veterans With Special Needs.--
Section 2061(d)(1) of such title is amended--
            (1) by striking ``each of fiscal years 2007 through 2022'' 
        and inserting ``each fiscal year''; and
            (2) by striking ``such''.
    (g) Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans.--Section 2066 of such 
title is amended by striking subsection (d).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15  May 7, 2010    Northeast Utilities 56 Prospect Street Hartford, CT 06103  We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated May 7, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.  We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-165579 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-63144, 333-121364 and 333-142724 on Form S-8.  We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.    /s/Deloitte & Touche LLPDeloitte & Touche LLP   Hartford, Connecticut
#### Walter HEADLEY, Chief of Police of the City of Miami, a municipal corporation of Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. Glenn BARON, Appellee.

No. 67-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 9, 1969.

Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and Charles K. Allan, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on May 28, 1968 (211 So.2d 223) affirming the final judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court s judgment by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinions and judgments filed July 16, 1969 and November 14, 1969 rehearing and mandate dated November 14, 1969, 228 So.2d 281, quashed this court’s judgment with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Now, therefore, it is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on June 26, 1968 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed May 28, 1968 is vacated, the said opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida are herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the final judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Emergency Rental Assistance Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

Notice Regarding Deadline to Obligate Reallocated Funds

September 29, 2022

Section 501 of Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Act) authorized the 

Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) program and as amended by section 3201 of the American 

Rescue Plan Act of 2021, provides that funds paid to state, territorial, local, and Tribal 

governments (Grantees) participating in ERA1 program shall remain available through 

September 30, 2022. 

The Act also provides that Grantees may request a 90-day extension of the September 30, 2022 

deadline for funds received through reallocation, subject to the approval of the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury (Treasury).1 The Request for Reallocated Funds form submitted by all Grantees 

seeking reallocated funds—either via the initial electronic form or through Treasury’s Portal—

includes language making this request. Accordingly, any Grantee that requested and received 

reallocated funds has already requested an extension, and no further action is required.

Treasury has approved all pending requests for 90-day extensions of the September 30, 

2022 deadline for ERA1 Grantees that were approved to receive reallocated ERA1 award 

funds. Any Grantee that, prior to the date of this notice, has submitted a Request for Reallocated 

Funds under the ERA1 program may obligate reallocated funds received pursuant to that request

through December 29, 2022.

This extension follows a prior approval of all pending extension requests Treasury announced on 

July 27, 2022. Thus, any ERA1 Grantee that has received reallocated funds to date has 

been approved for a 90-day extension of the September 30, 2022 deadline.

Any reallocated ERA1 award funds not obligated or expended by December 29, 2022 must be 

returned to Treasury during the award closeout period, no later than 120 calendar days after 

December 29, 2022. ERA1 award funds received through an initial allocation (i.e., not through 

the reallocation process) that are not obligated or expended by September 30, 2022 must be 

returned to Treasury during the award closeout period, no later than 120 calendar days after 

September 30, 2022, even if the Grantee retains additional funds received through reallocation 

that it may continue to obligate through December 29, 2022.

* * *

If you have any questions, please contact us by email at

emergencyrentalassistance@treasury.gov. Include your ERA1 Grantee number and in the 

Subject line add REALLOCATION.

1 Treasury reiterated the statutory deadline and the allowance for extension requests in its ERA1 reallocation 

guidance, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Updated-ERA1-Reallocation-Guidance%203-30-

%202022.pdf.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q OF
COX COMMUNICATIONS INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          52,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (18,352)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,570,973
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,668,793)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,805,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,150,561
<PREFERRED>                                      4,836
<COMMON>                                       604,849
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (28,805,882)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (779,851)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               257,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,314,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                   225,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,088,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,067,516
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.77<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS BASIC AND EPS DILUTED HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT ON MAY 21, 1999.  INTERIM FILINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE STOCK SPLIT HAVE BEEN
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE STOCK SPLIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### John Lewis LUMPKIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee (two cases).

Nos. 77-1345 and 77-1388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

John Lewis Lumpkin, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Anders v. California,*886 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on a' motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose'in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Treasury approves Nevada’s second plan to invest $73.7 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality 

internet to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Nevada

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $73.7 million for Broadband Infrastructure (54% of CPF allocation)

 Locations to Be Served: 42,500 (estimated)

 Program Description: The Nevada Middle Mile Program is a new initiative directly 

implemented by Nevada’s Office of Science, Innovation, and Technology (OSIT) to invest CPF

funds in middle-mile broadband infrastructure in order to expand access to reliable 

broadband service to rural areas of the state and increase the number of new and improved

last-mile connections with affordable internet.

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon 

project completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to 

participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy 

for low-income families. 

 Key State Contact: The Office of Science, Innovation, and Technology (OSIT)

Nevada Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
#### Carroll S. McDANIEL and Melvene J. McDaniel, Appellants, v. Charles T. LEWIS and Evelyn H. Lewis, Appellees.

No. 73-254.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-6-002]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 30, 1997, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the 
filing to be effective April 1, 1997.
    Trunkline asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order on Compliance Filings issued November 15, 1996 
in Docket No. RP97-6-000 to reflect the requirements of Order No. 587 
that interstate pipelines follow standardized procedures for critical 
business practices--nominations, flowing gas (allocations, balancing 
and measurement), invoicing and capacity release.
    Trunkline states that copies of the filing were served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and all 
parties on the service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before February 20, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3152 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Marie W. SHARPE, a single woman, Appellant, v. HERMAN A. THOMAS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.3





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Paul A. Hooper, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Gigamon Inc.; and





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.








Date: April 28, 2017


/s/ Paul A. HooperPaul A. HooperChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)











-1-
#### A. N. ABRAMOWITZ, Appellant, v. David SIEGEL et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1974.

Darryl M. Bloodworth, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Orlando, for appellant.

James E. Foster, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Tooke v. Thom, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So.2d 34; Pentecostal Holiness Church v. Mauney, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 762; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 568; Bellaire v. Brown, Fla. 1936, 124 Fla. 47, 168 So. 625.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, TL, concur.
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan of up to $574 million to Frontier 

Airlines, Inc. (the Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Frontier Airlines Holdings, Inc., and 

one of the largest domestic airlines in the United States. The Company had approximately 5,000 

U.S. employees in March 2020 and carried more than 21 million passengers in 2019. 

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Air, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by the Company’s Frontier Miles loyalty 

program. The loan has an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 2.5% and matures on September 26, 

2025. The Company elected to draw $150 million at close and may draw the remaining loan 

funds in multiple draws through May 28, 2021. The loan proceeds will be used to provide 

liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes covenants 

by the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock 

repurchases, dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act. 

Treasury will receive warrants to purchase common stock equal to 10% of the total loan amount 

drawn.