alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Deputy Charles PARKER, W. T. “Bill” Roberts, as Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, and American Home Assurance Company, Appellants, v. Laura Lucille ROBERTSON, Appellee.

No. 77-1184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1978.

James E. Thompson and Chris W. Alten-bernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Vil-lareal & Banker, Tampa, for appellants.

John D. Fernandez and Ronald P. Teevan of Cooper, Rives, Penick, Strohauer & Tee-van, Clearwater, for appellee.

DANAHY, Judge.

Appellee sued a Pinellas County deputy sheriff and W. T. “Bill” Roberts, the sheriff of Pinellas County, to recover damages for an alleged tort committed by the deputy. A jury returned a verdict against the deputy and Sheriff Roberts for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Several points are urged for reversal, but only one has merit. Sheriff Roberts argues that he cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the deputy complained of since those acts took place almost two years prior to the time Sheriff Roberts took office as sheriff. We agree, and reverse as to Sheriff Roberts with directions that the trial court enter judgment in his behalf. In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ziv Shoshani, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Vishay Precision Group, Inc.;




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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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)) 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;




(b) [ Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-54942 ]




(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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; and




5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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.




Dated: March 24, 2011

/s/ Ziv ShoshaniZiv ShoshaniChief Executive Officer


---
PCS NITROGEN FERTILIZER LP

30903CLMBN23COL

418 - Fertilizer

Dioxin Distributions

1 2 3 4

TRICalculations2008 (%) 0 0 0 0

TRICalculations2007 (%) - New Numbering NR NR NR NR

TRICalculations2005 (%) - New Numbering 0 0 0 0

TRICalculations2007 (%) - Old Numbering NR NR NR NR

TRICalculations2005 (%) - Old Numbering 0 0 0 0

NR - Surface water discharges of dioxin were not reported.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

0 7.91 92.09 0 0 0 0 0 0

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

0 0 0 0 0 7.91 0 92.09 0

Congeners
14 15 16 17

0 0 0 0

NR NR NR NR

0 0 0 0

NR NR NR NR

0 0 0 0
Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending

April 1 – June 30, 2014

Board 

Approval Date Country Amount Type U.S. Position Background

4/30/14 Ukraine SDR 10.976 billion

($17.01 billion)

SBA Support http://www.imf.org/external/n

p/sec/pr/2014/pr14189.htm

5/14/14 Central African 

Republic

SDR 8.355 million

($12.9 million)

RCF 

Disbursement

Support http://www.imf.org/external/n

p/sec/pr/2014/pr14226.htm

6/5/14 Seychelles SDR 11.445 million

($17.6 million)

EFF Support http://www.imf.org/external/n

p/sec/pr/2014/pr14262.htm

6/18/14 Madagascar SDR 30.55 million

($47.1 million)

RCF

Disbursement

Support http://www.imf.org/external/n

p/sec/pr/2014/pr14287.htm

6/26/14 Grenada SDR 14.04 million

($21.7 million)

ECF Support http://www.imf.org/external/n

p/sec/pr/2014/pr14310.htm
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-17-00263-CR 

____________________ 

DEIDRA MOORE WARE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

________________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Montgomery County, Texas 

Trial Cause No. 16-316318

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Deidra Moore Ware has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.2. Because a request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally 

and joined by counsel of record, and no opinion has issued in this appeal, the motion 

is granted. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 STEVE McKEITHEN 

 Chief Justice 
2 

Submitted on February 6, 2018 

Opinion Delivered February 7, 2018 

Do Not Publish 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.3

[LETTERHEAD OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. APPEARS HERE]

March
28, 2003

Hugoton
Royalty Trust
P.O. Box 830650
Dallas, TX 75283-0650

Re:

Hugoton Royalty Trust
2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K


Gentlemen:

The
firm of Miller and Lents, Ltd., consents to the use of its name and to the use of its report dated March 4, 2003, regarding the Hugoton Royalty Trust Proved Reserves
and Future Net Revenue as of December 31, 2002, in the 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Miller
and Lents, Ltd., has no interests in the Hugoton Royalty Trust or in any affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is not to receive any such interest as payment for such
reports and has no director,
officer, or employee otherwise connected with Hugoton Royalty Trust. We are not employed by Hugoton Royalty Trust on a contingent basis.

| |  | Yours very truly,     
| |  | ----------------------
| |  | MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
| |  | By                    

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31673]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)


Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
following meeting of the SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II in December 
1997.
    A summary of the meeting may be obtained from: Ms. Dee Herman, 
Committee Management Liaison, SAMHSA, Office of Policy and Program 
Coordination (OPPC), Division of Extramural Activities, Policy, and 
Review, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland 20857. 
Telephone: (301) 443-7390.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual 
named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
    The meeting will include the review, discussion and evaluation of 
individual contract proposals. These discussions could reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals and 
confidential and financial information about an individual's proposal. 
The discussion may also reveal information about procurement activities 
exempt from disclosure by statute and trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged and 
confidential. Accordingly, the meeting is concerned with matters exempt 
from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), and (6) 
and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d).

    Committee name: SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II.
    Meeting Date: December 15, 1997.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Chase Room, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20815-4495.
    Closed: December 15, 1997 9:00 a.m.--Adjournment.
    Contact: Michael Backenheimer, Ph.D., Room 17-89, Parklawn 
Building, Telephone: (301) 443-4783 and FAX: (301) 443-3437.

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 97-31673 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
#### Robert GISSENDANNER, Samuel Choice and John Forest Smalley, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ernest E. KATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 9, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1974.

Ernest E. Kates, pro se, and James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Bradenton, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., and Robert B. Persons, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, Sarasota, for appellant.

Robert E. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Guy E. Labalme, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The prosecutor did argue improperly to the jury, but on the entire record we find that the error is harmless.

It was error to sentence Kates on count II, and the sentence on that count is vacated. Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 12; Hernandez v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 278 So.2d 307. We see no necessity for the return of the appellant for resentencing,

Affirmed as modified.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### In re South County Drainage District. SOUTH COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. BREVARD COUNTY et al., Respondents.

No. 43895.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 23, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 31.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                               <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       15,200                       12,200
<SECURITIES>                                      0                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                               567,300                      578,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                            0
<INVENTORY>                                 448,200                      513,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,146,700                    1,193,900
<PP&E>                                    1,410,400                    1,566,500
<DEPRECIATION>                            (799,200)                    (862,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            5,217,300                    5,249,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       877,000                      862,900
<BONDS>                                   1,109,000                    1,580,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                            0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                            0
<COMMON>                                    615,000                      561,300
<OTHER-SE>                                2,050,300                    1,624,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5,217,300                    5,249,900
<SALES>                                   1,746,600                      848,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,746,600                      848,400
<CGS>                                     1,179,300                      577,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             1,179,300                      577,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           50,900                       29,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             228,800                       79,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                 85,000                       29,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         143,800                       50,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               39,400                       27,700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                            0
<CHANGES>                                         0                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                183,200                       77,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.60                         0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.52                         0.67
        

</TABLE>
#### William J. WILCOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-358.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 7, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Seman HATTAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50116.

D.C. No. CR-96-00886-SVW-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002 *.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Seman Hattar appeals his 262-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant’s attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Hattar has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

The *Anders*brief identifies and rejects three potential issues. First, counsel correctly acknowledges that there is no indication that Hattar’s guilty plea was involuntary, unknowing, or incompetent. *See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976-77 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing district court’s compliance with Rule 11); *United States v. Vonn,*— U.S. -, -,---, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 1054-55, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (establishing defendant’s burden to show plain error in light of the entire record).

Second, counsel concludes that the government complied with its obligations under the plea agreement, and the record supports this assessment.

Third, counsel raises, and correctly rejects as an issue for appeal, the district court’s denial of a downward departure based on Hattar’s lack of knowledge or control of the purity of the methamphetamine. That discretionary ruling is unre-viewable. *See United States v. Lipman,*133 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir.1998).

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) discloses no issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### HAFT-GAINES COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Relator, v. The Honorable Thomas J. REDDICK, Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 77-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1977.

Frank E. Maloney, Jr. of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for relator.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Howard I. Weiss of Levine & Fieldstone, P. A., Miami, for Steve Weil.

LETTS, Judge.

The Writ of Prohibition is Granted.

The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an out of court settlement of this cause confirmed by letter.1 In accordance with this settlement, attorneys for both sides executed and entered into a “Stipulation for Dismissal” filed with the court which read in toto:

> COME NOW the parties Steve Weil and Haft-Gaines Company by and through their undersigned attorneys and stipulate that this action may be dismissed in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 with prejudice to both parties.

The disputed letter of settlement is not, and never was, a part of the record below, nor will we permit it to become so on appeal. Pursuant to the stipulation set forth above, the court then entered a final order on the basis thereof which simply said, “This action is dismissed . . . with prejudice to both parties.”

No further pleadings were attempted until twenty-four days later when the plaintiff below filed a motion in the same cause to “compel return of property.” As grounds, this motion set forth that the defendant below had failed to give over certain property pursuant to the out of court letter of settlement already referred to. Surprisingly, the prayer, at the conclusion of this motion, sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees.

Predictably, a motion to dismiss was filed in opposition and the trial court correctly granted the motion to dismiss noting that it was without jurisdiction but that its ruling was without prejudice to the plaintiff below “to file a new law suit.”

Four months after the original order of dismissal pursuant to the written stipulations therefor, the plaintiff below next filed in the same cause a “motion to enforce settlement agreement” which once again sought, in the prayer, compensatory and *819punitive damages, fees and costs. There then ensued a hearing relative to a further motion to dismiss whereat the court concluded that it had all along retained equity jurisdiction. An order was then entered setting the cause for jury trial.

We hold that the trial court’s jurisdiction terminated after the final order of dismissal, pursuant to the joint stipulation, both as to subject matter and person. *Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Pearson,*236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970). See also *Cannon Sand and Rock Company v. Maule Industries,*203 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967).

The Writ of Prohibition is hereby granted. The trial court has no jurisdiction and the scheduled jury trial may not take place.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.

1

. The terms and contents of this letter are disputed.
#### ALVA FRUIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. James B. TIPTON and Richard P. Tipton, Appellees.

No. 70-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Charles Edward BETTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. N-459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 23, 1970.

Charles Edward Betts, in pro. per.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, it appears that a timely notice of appeal was actually filed by the petitioner, but due to the fact there did not appear in the Clerk’s Office (trial court clerk) an order adjudging the defendant insolvent, the notice of appeal was not actually filed for lack of the $25.00 filing fee.

The Circuit Court had entered an order stating that “it appearing to the court that defendant has been adjudged insolvent,” and thereupon appointed the public defender to represent the defendant on this appeal.

It appears to us from the petition and accompanying exhibits, that the petitioner’s direct appeal in this court, was attempted to be filed pro se, within the required time. The case appeared before us as Case No. L-482 with the notice of appeal, filed by the public defender in June 1969, which was more than 30 days after the rendition of the order appealed from, but, it appearing that the public defender was appointed by the Circuit Court on March 11, 1969, to represent the defendant on appeal, which was within time for a timely appeal, and inasmuch as the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal on the merits by state action (action of the public defender) under the theory of Hollingshead v. State, we do hereby authorize the petitioner to proceed with his appeal, and do direct the Public Defender of Escambia County to represent *192said defendant on his appeal. If the public defender desires, he may request this court to consider his brief filed in our case No. L-482 as his brief in this appeal.

WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.3

<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars and shares except per share amounts)
Sixteen Weeks Ended Nov. 11, 2000 and Nov. 13, 1999
<CAPTION>
                                          Sixteen Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                          Nov. 11,    Nov. 13,
                                            2000        1999
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares:
      From continuing operations         $  2,955     $ (2,663)
      From discontinued operations         (3,297)        (680)
                                         ---------    ---------
        Net loss                         $   (342)    $ (3,343)
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,828       17,784
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                               (10,126)      (7,946)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             7,702        9,838
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares:
      From continuing operations         $   0.38     $  (0.27)
      From discontinued operations          (0.42)       (0.07)
                                         ---------    ---------
        Net loss                         $  (0.04)    $  (0.34)
                                         =========    =========


</TABLE>



                              33
#### WKAT, INC., a Florida corporation and Lee Vogel, Petitioners, v. Leonard RUBIN, Respondent.

No. 69-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 8, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### William E. WEBER, Jr., Appellant, v. Raymond FARKAS and Robert Michael Farkas, Appellees.

No. 69-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 25, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.