alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EASTERN STEAMSHIP CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Thomas EGAN, Appellee.

No. 70-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1971.

Shutts & Bowen and Robert A. Jarvis, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart and L. Edward McClellan, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ„ and MARTIN, HENRY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a final judgment for money damages resulting from personal injuries to appellee, plaintiff below, entered by the trial court as the result of a trial before the court without a jury. The parties will be referred to as they stood in the trial court.

Defendant’s primary contentions on appeal are: (1) that the trial court erred in striking defendant’s affirmative defense relating to the statute of limitations upon plaintiff’s motion to strike such defense prior to trial, (2) that there is insufficient evidence in the record to sustain a finding of fact by the trial court that the vessel “Ariadne” was owned, operated, maintained or controlled by defendant, Eastern Steamship Corp., and (3) that there is insufficient evidence of any negligence on the part of defendant disclosed by the record.

Plaintiff had been aboard the vessel “Ariadne” to wish friends well prior to their departure on a cruise aboard the ship. While attempting to disembark from the vessel, plaintiff’s leg fell through an opening or gap between the top of the gangplank and the side of the vessel. This opening or gap was covered by red carpeting which ran the length of the gangplank and over the side of the ship.

This court has reviewed the action of the trial court in striking defendant’s affirmative defense of statute of limitations. In view of the posture of the case as presented to the trial judge at the time such order was entered, this court is unable to find reversible error in that connection.

This court has carefully considered the entire record in this case and finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding of the trial court with respect to the operation, maintenance and control of the vessel “Ariadne” by the defendant at the time and place of plaintiff’s injuries 1 and of the negligence of said defendant. Although this court may have *610reached a different conclusion on the basis of the evidence disclosed by the record, such evidence does present questions of fact on those issues.

' We have considered the other points raised by defendant on appeal and find that said defendant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and that this cause should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. McCauley v. Eastern Steamship Dines, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 72.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Health Management Systems, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File No. 33-91518) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-65560, 33-76638, 33-76770,
33-95326, 333-33706 and 333-77121) of Health Management Systems, Inc. of our
report dated January 5, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Health Management Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of October 31, 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
income (loss), shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended October 31, 2000 and the related schedule, which report
appears in the October 31, 2000, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Health Management
Systems, Inc.


                                                               /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
February 9, 2001
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00158-CV

IN RE MURRIN BROTHERS 1885, 

LTD., ERI-BBTX, LLC, AND 

CONCHO MINICK, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF 

OF BILLY BOB’S TEXAS

INVESTMENTS, LLC, PHILIP 

MURRIN, AND COWTOWN 

CONCESSIONS, INC., D/B/A RIVER 

RANCH STOCKYARDS

RELATORS

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 348-292200-17

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the real 

parties in interest’s response, and the relators’ reply and is of the opinion that 

relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is 

denied.

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED: July 3, 2018
#### PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 77-922.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1977.

*805Robert L. Hesse of Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Weber & Sparrow, Sarasota, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

GRIMES, Judge.

Upon the assertion of the Sarasota County Property Appraiser pursuant to Section 194.032(6)(a)3, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), the Department of Revenue determined that by virtue of certain of its decisions the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County had consistently and continuously violated the intent of the law. The Adjustment Board has filed in this court a petition to review this determination, and the Department of Revenue has filed a motion to dismiss.

The obtaining of a determination by the Department of Revenue that “there exists a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board in its decisions” is one of several alternative statutory conditions precedent which must exist before a property appraiser may appeal a decision of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board to the circuit court. In essence, by virtue of its general supervision over property assessments, the Department of Revenue is charged with deciding whether the property appraiser has probable cause to go to court. Yet, even when a determination of probable cause has been made, the decision of whether to appeal to the court remains within the discretion of the property appraiser. In the event the matter goes to court, the proceeding is de novo, and the burden of proof is on the property appraiser. Section 194.-032(6)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). *806The determination of probable cause can have no bearing upon the outcome of the litigation. Thus, even though the action of the Department of Revenue is final in the sense that the Department will have nothing further to do with the matter, it is not final agency action which has adversely affected the Adjustment Board. Section 120.-68, Florida Statutes (1975). We do not pass on the question of whether a determination adverse to the property appraiser would be final agency action, because under those circumstances the property appraiser would be without further recourse.

The petition for review is hereby dismissed.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10514 Summary Calendar
BILLY MINH LE Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN DAVID BERKEBILE Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CV-192 Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy Minh Le, federal prisoner # 14946-064, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in which the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) determined that Le had possessed a weapon and gambling paraphernalia. Among other sanctions, Le lost 54 days ofgood conduct time. Le argues that the district court erred in determining that the evidencewassufficient tosupport the decision ofthe DHO. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10514

2 Le has not shown that the district court erred in determining that there was “some evidence” in the record to support the DHO’s disciplinary decision as the DHO’s decision was based on the charging officer’s statement regarding the situation and Le’s behavior, the fact that the evidence was found in Le’s bunk, and Le’s demeanor as he presented his claim of innocence to the DHO. See Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Ang, Kahn Han, President of Sooner Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant.;





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;





3.           Omitted;





4.           The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and





b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





d) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;





5.           The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.








Date:  April 29, 2011

/s/ Ang, Kahn HanAng, Kahn Han

President






6
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3268]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2924


Idaho; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area (Amendment #1)

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, dated January 22, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is 
hereby amended to include Kootenai and Benewah Counties in the State of 
Idaho as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, 
flooding, and mud and land slides beginning on December 27, 1996 and 
continuing.
    All counties contiguous to the above-named counties have been 
previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is March 5, 1997, and for 
loans for economic injury the deadline is October 6, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: January 30, 1997.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-3268 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
256 La. 374

#### Lloyd JARY, Jr. v. Dr. Robert O. EMMETT.

No. 50673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Lloyd Jary, Jr. applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 234 So.2d 530.

Writ refused. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
Exhibit 21

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant


1.      Wallaby Software Corporation - A New Jersey Corporation

2.      Calyx Acquisition Corp. - A Delaware corporation.

3.      Calyx Corporation -  A Wisconsin corporation.

4.      V Holding Corp. - A Delaware corporation.

5.      Versyss Incorporated - A Delaware corporation.

6.      Practice Management Corp. - A Delaware corporation.

7.      Wismer-Martin, Inc. - A Washington corporation.

8.      PCN Service Corp. - A Delaware corporation.

9.      PCN HP Venture Corp. - A Delaware corporation

10.     Integrated Health Systems, Inc. - A California corporation
CAUSE NUMBER 03—15—00284—CR 

EX PARTE X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 X 

 X THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

 X 

LEONARD RAY BARKER X STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

FILING OF APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, by and through his appointed 

attorney of record, Paul M. Evans, in the above entitled and numbered 

cause, and moves this Court, to grant the Appellant’s Motion to Extend 

Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief, and, in support thereof, would show the 

Court as follows: 

 I.

Appellant’s Brief was due before this Court on August 5, 2015. A 

previous Motion to Extend Time was filed on July 13, 2015, and granted the 

following day. 

 II. 

The undersigned counsel needs additional time to examine the record 

and complete the research necessary to complete the Appellant’s Brief. 

Counsel has labored to complete the Appellant’s Brief as quickly and 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00284-CR

6630758

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/24/2015 5:36:48 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/24/2015 5:36:48 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
diligently as possible, but other obligations to other clients have impeded 

his efforts. Counsel is scheduled to begin a jury trial in the 331st District 

Court of Travis County on August 31, 2015, in a matter involving one first 

degree count of Aggravated Sexual Assault and two counts of Indecency 

with a Child by Contact (State v. San Juan). Counsel has no reasonable 

belief that the case will be resolved in any manner other than contested trial, 

lasting approximately one week, and no other cases are set on the trial 

docket in the 331st District Court at that time. 

In light of this and other ongoing obligations and responsibilities, 

counsel would hereby respectfully request the deadline be extended to 

September 21, 2015. 

 III. 

This Motion is not made for purposes of delay, but so that justice 

might be served. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully 

prays that this Court, upon good cause shown, grant the Appellant’s Second 

Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief.
 Respectfully submitted,

 Law Office of Paul M. Evans

 811 Nueces Street

 Austin, Texas 78701

 (512) 569-1418

 (512) 692-8002 FAX

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS

 SBN 24038885

 Attorney for Defendant

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

was delivered by facsimile unto the office of the prosecuting attorney for the 

State of Texas—the Travis County District Attorney, mailing address P.O. 

Box 1748, Austin, TX, 78767, physical address 509 W. 11th Street, Austin, 

TX, 78701—on this the 24th day of August, 2015. 

 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 I hereby certify that the present document contains 443 words, all 

contents included. 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Leroy J. BROWN, Appellant.

No. 01-3778.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 5, 2002.

Filed Aug. 28, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Leroy J. Brown appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced appellant to consecutive prison terms of 108 months and 60 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing for reversal that the district court erred in not granting Brown’s U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 motion for a downward departure.

We conclude that the district court’s discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure is unreviewable. *See United States v. Wolf,*270 F.3d 1188, 1192 (8th Cir.2001). Having found no nonfrivolous issues following our independent review of the record in accordance with *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF CIB MARINE**         **STATE/JURISDICTION OF****DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES** **INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES** **INCORPORATION**     CIB MARINE BANCSHARES, INC.   Wisconsin Corporation     Central Illinois Bank   Illinois Commercial Bank     CIBConstruction, LLC(2)   Illinois Limited Liability Company       Canron Corporation (1) (2) Michigan Corporation     Everett Tech, Inc. f/k/a MICR, Inc.(2)   Illinois Corporation     CIB Bank (3)   Indiana Commercial Bank     First Ozaukee Capital Corp.   Wisconsin Corporation       Marine Bank Wisconsin Commercial Bank       Marine Investment Corporation Nevada Subsidiary     Marine Bank (4)   Federal Savings Bank     CIB Marine Information Services, Inc.   Illinois Corporation     Mortgage Services, Inc. (2)   Illinois Corporation     CIB Marine Capital Trust I   Delaware Business Trust     CIB Statutory Trust III   Connecticut Statutory Trust     CIB Statutory Trust IV   Connecticut Statutory Trust     CIB Statutory Trust V   Delaware Business Trust     Citrus Financial Services, Inc.   Florida Corporation       Citrus Bank, NA National Banking Association     CIB Marine Capital, LLC(5)   Wisconsin Limited Liability Company      (1) CIB Construction owns 84% of the outstanding stock of Canron. (2) See Note 7 – Companies held for disposal and discontinued operations regarding the wind downof these subsidiaries. (3) Merged into Marine Bank, Wisconsin on August 1, 2006. (4) Merged into Marine Bank, Wisconsin on March 1, 2006 (5) During 2003, CIB Marine ceased to offer new loans through CIB Marine Capital and beganwinding down its affairs, including the sale and collection ofoutstanding loans.
125
1

Ogulei, David

From: Nancy L Paddock <nancy.paddock@veoliaes.com>

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:51 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Dennis J Warchol

Subject: TWI boiler designation

Hi David, 

Dennis and I spoke this morning about the possibility of our boiler being an area source as opposed to a major 

source. This is a different perspective for us and we’d like to understand all aspects of this approach before making a 

decision. I will get back to you as soon as possible once we’ve had an opportunity to digest things. 

Thank you! 

Nancy L. Paddock 

Environmental Engineering Specialist 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618.271.2804 (ext-115) 

618.271.2128 (fax) 

Nancy.Paddock@VeoliaES.com

www.VeoliaES.com

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 

contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the 

original message and delete it from all computers.