alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CONCORD SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. George J. TALIANOFF, as Trustee, Appellee.

No. 73-186.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Georgiana CARUCCI, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1597, 76-1803, 76-1804 and 76-1840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1977.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellant.

*735McCormick, Bedford & Backmeyer, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The only point presented on these consolidated appeals is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff Georgiana Carucci’s motion for a new trial upon the following ground:

> “. . that the Court committed harmful error prejudicial to the Plaintiff by permitting Defendant to present testimony over Plaintiff’s objections to the prior driving record of Defendant, DADE COUNTY’S employee bus driver, J. P. Williams, who was driving the Defendant’s bus in which Plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident.”

We hold that there has been no showing of abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See *Montenegro v. Rainwater,*314 So.2d 191 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and cf. *Pepin v. Retail Discount Association,*226 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 145).

Ordinarily, the evidence of a defendant’s past driving record should not be made a part of the jury’s considerations. There is support for this proposition and for the actions of the trial judge below in the case law of this and other jurisdictions. Cf. *Powell v. Horne,*149 Fla. 240, 5 So.2d 451 (1942); and *Short v. Allen,*254 So.2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). See also 8 Am.Jur.2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 940 (1963). Finally, it would appear from the record that the past driving record of the bus driver received undue attention in this case.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERRICK R. COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CR-93-123)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick R. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew R. Hubbell, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for a reduction of his sentence under former Fed. R.

Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court concluding that the

court had not sentenced Appellant relying on material misinformation in the presentence investigation report and that there was no

other grounds for reduction of the sentence. United States v.

Cooper, No. CR-93-123 (D.S.C. Jan. 23, 1998). Appellant’s motion to

expedite this appeal is moot and is denied for that reason. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2959

___________

Andrew L. Williams, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 18, 2000

 Filed: February 28, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Williams appeals the judgment the District Court1 entered upon a jury

verdict in favor of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) in his employment

discrimination case. After reviewing the record, we conclude the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion for default judgment because the

original defendants had filed a motion to dismiss and their answer was not yet due. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A); Harris v. St. Louis Police Dep't, 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th
-2-

Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). Nor did the District Court abuse its

discretion by finding the ADC had not “failed to respond” to a discovery request, and

thus denying Williams’s motion for summary judgment; or by later ruling that the ADC

had complied with an order granting Williams’s motion to compel discovery. See

Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 430 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeals

court reviews district court’s application of discovery rules for abuse of discretion).

Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw, which Williams had opposed; or in the denial of

Williams’s motion to act as co-counsel, cf. United States v. Einfeldt, 138 F.3d 373, 378

(8th Cir.) (district court has discretion to provide standby counsel for criminal

defendant), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 851 (1998); United States v. Brown, No. 95-1616,

1995 WL 732803, at *3 (8th Cir. Dec. 12, 1995) (unpublished per curiam) (criminal

defendant does not have constitutional right to act as co-counsel), cert. denied, 517

U.S. 1174 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc., I, Thomas A. Franza,
Chief Executive Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 13, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas A. Franza                    
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas A. Franza Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the accompanying report on Form 10-Q. A signed original copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Turkey: Proposed IFC Investment in Akenerji Elektrik Uretimi A. S.

June 10, 2010

U.S. Position

This IFC investment will support the development of small scale hydropower projects in the 

Seyhan river basin, increase power generation capacity and may fund future investments in 

distribution privatizations. As such, the operation will help address Turkey's shortfall in energy 

generation. Private sector involvement in the energy sector is currently negligible. Therefore,the 

United States welcomes IFC’s efforts to foster a more credible and sustainable private sector in 

this area. 

While the United States supports the aims of this project and recognizes the significant need for 

additional power generation in Turkey, there are weaknesses in some aspects of the 

environmental due diligence. For example, the environmental impact assessment documentation 

that is publically available does not include assessments of associated infrastructure, such as the 

four transmission lines needed for the project. Further, the cumulative impact assessment, which 

is critical given the cascade effect of the sequence of dams on the river, is not provided. Instead, 

IFC summarized a 2008 report from another project and has provided no indication whether the 

study included detailed fisheries or hydrological studies. 

The United States welcomes the agreement by the company to an action plan to strengthen the 

environmental impact assessment. This requires conducting EIAs for the transmission lines and 

more detailed studies for the cumulative impact assessment. It also requires a monitoring 

program for cumulative impacts. However, there is no indication that these reports will be made 

available to the public or the Board; nor is there is a discussion of mitigation measures that may 

be required once the potential cumulative impacts are understood, including a water release 

program to ensure ecological river flows. The United States requests that Management post all 

of these documents on its website upon receipt.

In light of the above, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on this investment.
No. 00-7575.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ Jeffrey C. Mack               |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | Jeffrey C. Mack                   |
|   | Director, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                              |
|   | March 31, 2014                    |
|   |                              |
|   | /s/ Jeffrey C. Mack               |
|   | Jeffrey C. Mack                   |
|   | Acting Chief Financial Officer    |
|   |                              |
|   | March 31, 2014                    |
#### Leonard FELDMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1090.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

Notice of Funds Availability; Inviting Applications for the 
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program; Correction

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Foreign Agricultural Service published a document in the 
Federal Register of April 23, 2012, concerning funds availability and 
inviting applications for the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) 
Program. The document contained incorrect dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Slupek, 202-720-4327.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 23, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-9638, on 
page 24171, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight 
Time, May 23, 2012. Applications received after this date will not be 
considered.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    In the Federal Register of April 23, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-9638, on 
page 24172, in the second column, correct the ``3. Submission Dates and 
Times'' caption to read:
    3. Submission Dates and Times. All applications must be received by 
5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 23, 2012. All Cooperator program 
applicants, regardless of the method of submitting an application, also 
must submit by the application deadline, an original signed 
certification statement as specified in 7 CFR section 1484.20(a)(14) to 
the Program Operations Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign 
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6512, 1400 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. Applications or 
certifications received after this date will not be considered.

     Dated: April 27, 2012.
Suzanne E. Heinen,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Vice President, 
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2012-11120 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

November 1, 2010

Donald Gabrielson, Director

Pinal County Department of Development Services

Air Quality Control District

P.O. Box 987

Florence, AZ 85232

Dear Mr. Gabrielson :

Thank you for your timely submission of the 2010 Ambient Monitoring Network

Plan and 200 9 Data Summary. We have reviewed the submitted document and have

found that it is complete, informative, very detailed and meets all of the requirements for

annual network plans as required by our regulations set forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10.

Enclosed , please find our comments on the plan. If you have any questions

regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415)

972

- 3851 or Michael Flagg at (415) 972

- 3372.

Sincerely,

//s//

Matthew Lakin, Manager

Air Quality Analysis Office

Air Division

Enclosure

cc: Michael Sundblom, Pinal County AQCD

Kale Walch, Pinal County AQCDComments on 2010 Pinal County Network Plan

Please update next year’s annual network plan to reflect the following comments:

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 specify the scales of representativeness and objectives for

SLAMS and SPM monitors in the network, while many o f the site descriptions in

Appendix B contain multiple scales of representativeness for a single pollutant.

The detailed site reports should include a single scale of representativeness that is

consistent with the information in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

It wou ld be helpful and very informative if the site descriptions in Appendix B

indentified the method code for each instrument

.

Information concerning the last two semi

- annual flow rate audits (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 ) and the last performance annual performance evalua tion (gaseous

pollutants) in Appendix B should include the specific dates that these audits were

performed.
#### Anthony Lunan et al., Respondents, v James J. Mormile et al., Appellants.

[735 NYS2d 534]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered April 24, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Anthony Lunan was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell while taking a shower in the bathtub of his apartment. Thereafter, this action was commenced alleging that defendants, the owners of the premises, were negligent in failing to equip the bathtub with “non-skid surfacing” on the floor or grab bars on the walls. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that there was a question of fact as to whether defendants maintained the bathtub in a reasonably safe manner. We reverse.

In opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiffs failed to identify any common-law or statutory requirement imposing upon owners the duty to supply non-skid surfacing or grab bars in bathtubs, and, contrary to plaintiffs’ claim, Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 does not impose such a duty. Accordingly, summary *250judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted *(cf., Portanova v Trump Taj Mahal Assocs.,*270 AD2d 757, *lv denied*95 NY2d 765). We have examined plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Lemer, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
1

Public Meeting

Thursday, September 7, 2023

1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. EDT

Cash Room, Treasury Building

I. Call to Order

II. Roll Call

III. Tribal Opening

IV. Approval of Minutes from the June 14, 2023 Meeting

V. Remarks by IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel

VI. Comments by Members of the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee (TTAC)

VII. Remarks by Treasurer Chief Marilynn “Lynn” Malerba

VIII. Federal Agency Updates

a. Elizabeth Reese, Senior Policy Advisor for Native Affairs, White House 

Domestic Policy Council 

b. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission: 

c. Jack C. Jackson, Tribal Liaison, U.S. Department of Labor

d. Jonathan Dixon, Advisor, FinCEN

IX. Treasury and IRS Updates

a. Fatima Abbas, Director, Office of Tribal and Native Affairs, U.S. Department of 

the Treasury

b. Krishna Vallabhaneni, Tax Legislative Counsel, Office of Tax Policy 

c. IRS Updates:

i. Chief Counsel:

1. Rachel Levy, Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt 

Organizations, and Employment Taxes)

2. Scott Vance, Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax Accounting (ITA))

3. Holly Porter, Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special 

Industries (PSI))

ii. Commissioner:
2

1. Edward Killen, Commissioner, Tax Exempt & Government Entities

2. Carmen Zucker, Office of Indian Tribal Governments Program Acting 

Manager

X. TTAC Subcommittee Updates

a. General Welfare Exclusion

b. Tribal Pensions

c. Dual Taxation

XI. Public Comments

XII. Close of Business 

XIII. Adjourn
#### The SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Salvador DIAZ-VERSON et al., Appellees.

No. 73-974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 35.1




SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





For the period of January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the servicing of consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2010-A has been conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated March 1, 2010.  To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Dated:  March 20, 2013




BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLCBy:
/s/ Joachim HenselName:
Joachim HenselTitle:
Vice President – Finance & CFO
Table 1. Foreigners’ Transactions in Long-Term Securities with U.S. Residents

(Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)

2002 2003 Jan-03 Jan-04 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 13,022.9 15,725.9 13,049.5 16,106.8 1,438.4 1,171.1 1,198.8 1,385.5

2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 12,475.4 14,981.4 12,472.1 15,308.2 1,397.2 1,088.7 1,118.0 1,285.3

3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 547.6 744.5 577.4 798.6 41.1 82.4 80.8 100.2

4 Private, net /2 508.3 605.0 525.3 635.6 18.3 61.5 64.4 69.3

5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 112.8 163.7 120.4 184.6 -7.4 14.6 18.4 20.0

6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 166.6 138.0 179.3 141.9 6.4 9.3 12.9 23.3

7 Corporate Bonds, net 176.7 265.5 184.6 255.1 20.3 28.7 19.7 12.5

8 Equities, net 52.2 37.8 40.9 54.0 -1.0 8.9 13.4 13.4

9 Official, net 39.3 139.5 52.1 163.0 22.9 20.9 16.4 31.0

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 7.1 109.3 16.2 133.9 19.5 18.9 11.3 26.9

11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 28.6 24.9 32.1 24.6 3.0 1.3 4.4 4.2

12 Corporate Bonds, net 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5

13 Equities, net -2.0 -0.2 -2.1 -0.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.6

14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 2,640.0 3,526.8 2,672.5 3,686.4 366.4 315.2 310.1 390.3

15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 2,613.0 3,572.3 2,652.7 3,731.3 379.0 319.7 315.2 398.5

16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 27.0 -45.5 19.8 -44.9 -12.6 -4.5 -5.1 -8.2

17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net 28.5 25.7 32.1 32.5 -5.1 -3.7 0.0 4.9

18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -1.5 -71.2 -12.3 -77.4 -7.5 -0.8 -5.0 -13.1

19 Net Long-Term Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 574.6 699.0 597.2 753.7 28.5 78.0 75.8 92.0

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)

/2 Includes International and Regional Organizations

/3 Net U.S. acquisitions of foreign securities (-)

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury

(Billion of dollars)

12 Months Through
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of New Mountaintop Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Mark Golden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Mark Golden

Mark Golden,

Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 25, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ray KAISER, Appellant, v. Carl WHITE and Elevator Sales and Service, Inc., County Mortgagee Corp., a New York corporation, Abe Muravchick and Pauline Muravchick, his wife, and Miami National Bank, Appellees.

No. 69-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 25, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brenda C. Barnes, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 6, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Brenda C. Barnes,                
|President and Chief Executive Officer