alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shirley L. TAXAY, Appellant, v. Emil P. TAXAY, Appellee.

No. 70-470.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1971.

Louis Schneiderman, Miami, for appellant.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The wife, Shirley L. Taxay, sued Emil P. Taxay for separate maintenance. His answer denied the allegations of her complaint and contained a counterclaim for divorce. A final judgment was rendered which granted a divorce to the husband and' awarded certain monetary relief. The wife appeals from that final judgment.

The record contains sufficient, competent and substantial evidence, adequately *617corroborated, to uphold the rendition of a final decree of divorce for the plaintiff husband by the trial court. See Chesnut v. Chesnut, 160 Fla. 83, 33 So.2d 730 (1948); Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65 (1940); and Hillyard v. Hillyard, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 306.

The wife contends that the trial court erred in granting the husband a divorce in view of his admission below that he had committed adultery. We have reviewed the record and do not find that the trial judge abused his judicial discretion in determining the equities between these parties. See Stewart v. Stewart, 158 Fla. 326, 29 So.2d 247 (1947), 170 A.L.R. 1073; and Benson v. Benson, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 748.

The trial court did err in not requiring the husband to continue to pay the premiums on a health and accident insurance policy which he maintained on his wife and minor daughter during the marriage. There was an abuse of judicial discretion, on the evidence in this record, in not requiring him to continue to pay for the policy in the future. Error was also committed in not requiring the husband to pay the expenses for a summer camp for his daughter and a $1,000 air conditioning bill which the wife had incurred for air conditioning of the marital home which she occupied after the husband had left. We find no assignment of error directed to the failure of the trial court to require the husband to pay the future dental care of their minor daughter.

The final decree of divorce is affirmed but is amended and modified to require the husband to pay premiums on the health and accident policy for the wife and daughter; to pay reasonable and necessary expenses for summer camp for his minor daughter and to pay or reimburse the wife for the repair of the air conditioning unit in the marital home in the amount of $1,-000.

The final judgment is accordingly

Affirmed in part and modified in part.
EXHIBIT 32.2 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 of Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Stephen Feldschuh, Vice
President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and 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 Daxor
Corporation. /s/ Stephen
  FeldschuhStephen
  FeldschuhVice
  President of Operations andChief
  Financial OfficerNovember 14,
  2006 36
#### John ROBERTSON, Judge of the Municipal Court, City of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Leon A. HARTY and John William Sampson, Respondents.

No. 39236.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1, 1970.

*634Joseph X. DuMond, Jr., for petitioner.

Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, to review the decision of that Court certified as passing on a question of great public interest.1 The question certified is whether a person charged in Municipal Court with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of a municipal ordinance, is entitled to trial by jury.2 This Court has answered the question certified in the negative in Smith v. Davis, opinion filed February 4, 1970.3 We note, however, that the question presented by this case, as well as by the Smith v. Davis and Robertson v. Bradford cases,4 deserves the attention of the Florida Legislature.

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for further consideration in the light of this Court’s decision in Smith v. Davis, supra.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.

1

. 227 So.2d 346 (Fla.App.4th 1969).

2

. See F.S. § 322.262(4) (1967), F.S.A.

3

. Fla., 231 So.2d 517 (Opinion filed February 4, 1970).

4

. Fla., 233 So.2d 633, opinion filed April 1, 1970.
#### Sulalie D. MIXSON, Oscar Fowler, Lucille Hobson and Shirley Ann Auvil, Appellants, v. Ray S. BRILL, Jr., as guardian of Leola T. Abel, an incompetent, Appellee.

No. FF-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 21, 1977.

Gene H. Auvil, Miami, for appellants.

Ray S. Brill, Jr., Gainesville, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed their interlocutory appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss appellee’s complaint. We find no substance to the complained of error. The order is

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00334-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.J., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CI-14957

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2016

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the clerk’s record was due on June 3, 

2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(a). On June 7, 2016, the Bexar County District Clerk notified this 

court that Appellant has failed to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and Appellant is not 

entitled to a free clerk’s record. On June 16, 2016, we ordered Appellant to file written proof with

this court by June 27, 2016, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. 

We warned Appellant that if she failed to respond as ordered, this appeal would be dismissed for 

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 
04-16-00334-CV

- 2 -

To date, Appellant has not filed any response with this court. Therefore, we dismiss this 

appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM
#### Willie WILSON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 3524.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

July 7, 1969.

Many, Hartman & LoCoco, Vincent T. LoCoco, New Orleans, for Government Employees Ins. Co. and James M. Burlingame.

Porteous & Johnson, Ben C. Toledano, New Orleans, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Normann & Normann, Frank S. Nor-mann, New Orleans, for Willie Wilson appellant.

John W. Bryan, Jr., New Orleans, for Al Swindoll, John F. Swindoll and Alva Louise Swindoll Burison.

Before REGAN, YARRUT, and HALL, JJ-

REGAN, Judge.

The plaintiff, Willie Wilson, sued the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, endeavoring to recover the sum of $39,440.00 representing injuries and damages which he asserts he incurred as the result of the negligence of the defendant’s insured, Sarah Swindoll. After a trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit at his costs, and from that judgment, he has prosecuted this appeal.

This case was consolidated with “Al Swindoll, John F. Swindoll, and Alva Louise Swindoll, et al. v. Willie Wilson, et al., 224 So.2d 817,” in which the plaintiffs *819seek to recover damages for the death of their wife and mother caused by the negligence of the defendant, Wilson. This case was also consolidated with “Government Employees Insurance Company and James M. Burlingame v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, and Willie Wilson” 224 So.2d 819 in which the plaintiffs seek to recover property damage incurred by the Bur-lingame vehicle as the result of the accident.

For the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs is hereby affirmed. The defendant, Willie Wilson, is to pay all costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>              5
<CIK>                  0000027099
<NAME>                 DATATAB, INC.

       

<S>                                                          <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                 JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                             6,907
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    215,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                        1,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 228,927
<PP&E>                                                           126,681
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   122,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   233,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            165,249
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            788,955
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (739,495)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     233,309
<SALES>                                                          179,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 191,018
<CGS>                                                            192,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    272,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  79,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (81,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (81,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (81,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.11)
        


</TABLE>
#### Bennie F. DUGGER, Individually, and Bennie F. Dugger, as Executrix of the Estate of Fred Lloyd Dugger, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. HELLER BROTHERS PACKING COMPANY, INC., a Fla. corp., et al., Defendants.

No. 73-848.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 26, 1973.

“Certified question dismissed”.
#### George ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1833.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1977.

George Robinson, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

George Robinson appeals his convictions on two counts of robbery.

The first contention raised by defendant concerns the introduction into evidence, over his objection, of testimony of several *1101prosecution witnesses pertaining to their identification of him in a preindictment police lineup and their subsequent in-court identification. Defendant argues that this identification testimony was inadmissible because his counsel was not present at the police lineup and as authority cites to *U. S. v. Wade,*388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and *Gilbert v. California,*388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).

We find *Wade*and *Gilbert*to be inapplicable. These cases are applicable to out-of-court identification situations after a defendant has been indicted or criminal proceedings have been initiated. See *Kirby v. Illinois,*406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). The record in the instant case reflects that defendant participated in the police lineup prior to being informed against. See *Kirby, supra; Perkins v. State,*228 So.2d 382 (Fla.1969); *Robinson*v. *State,*237 So.2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Defendant secondly contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence his confession given to a police officer after his arrest, but prior to the filing of an information because his counsel was not present. Defendant relies upon *Massiah v. U. S.,*377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964).

We find the reliance upon Massiah misplaced because Massiah applies only to a defendant who has been indicted or informed against. Cf. *U. S. v. Anderson,*523 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir. 1975). Moreover, defendant does not allege that his confession was coerced and the officer to whom he confessed testified that defendant was read his Miranda rights and did not request an attorney. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the confession was admissible. Cf. *U. S. v. De Loy,*421 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1970).

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2545 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2545

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the role of doctors 
 of podiatric medicine in the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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. ROLE OF DOCTORS OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE IN DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Clarification of Role.--Section 7306 of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``a Director of 
                Podiatric Service,'';
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph 
                (11); and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following 
                new paragraph:
            ``(10) A Podiatric Medical Director, who shall be a 
        qualified doctor of podiatric medicine and who shall be 
        responsible to the Under Secretary for Health for the operation 
        of the Podiatric Service.'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``podiatric 
        medicine,'' after ``doctors of medicine,''; and
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``and (8)'' and 
        inserting ``(8), and (10)''.
    (b) Clarification of Pay Grade.--Section 7404 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``, podiatrists,'' 
        after ``physicians'' ; and
            (2) in subsection (b), in the first heading of the list 
        following the colon, by striking ``PODIATRIST'' and inserting 
        ``PODIATRIST (DPM)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Document

Exhibit 10.4B

CHS Long-Term Incentive Plan
Appendix for Fiscal 2021- 2023 Performance Period




Transition Performance Period - Prorated Fiscal 2021-2023
In order to provide Participants the opportunity to receive an Award during the transition to the three-year Performance Period under the Plan, Participants will be eligible for a prorated Award for the fiscal 2021-2023 Performance Period (Transition Performance Period), based on plan entry date, as described in the Plan document. For Participants who enter the Plan in the period from September 1, 2021 through March 1, 2023, and remain eligible through the end of the Transition Performance Period, Awards will be prorated by the number of months eligible, as Participants will be active for a portion of the Transition Performance Period. During the Transition Performance Period the maximum proration of any Award will be 24 out of 36 months. A Participant who enters the Plan after September 1, 2021, and/or who terminates employment before the end of the Transition Performance Period due to retirement, death or disability, will be eligible for a prorated Award only per the terms of the Plan.


Fiscal 2021-2023 Return on Invested Capital Goals
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) Financial Performance Goals are established for each Performance Period at the beginning of the Performance Period. The following table illustrates ROIC Performance Goals. 
												
	Performance Goal Level	Level Definition	Award as Percent of Target	Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)
	Maximum	Above Expected level of Performance	200%	6.5%
	Target	Expected level of Performance	100%	5.5%
	Threshold	Lowest Level of Performance - Plan Trigger	50%	4.1%




As noted in the table above, Threshold Performance must be met to trigger any potential Award under the Plan for the Performance Period.


Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) Definition
ROIC is a measurement of how efficiently the company uses its capital and the level of returns on that capital. It is calculated by dividing net operating profit after tax by funded debt plus equity. Further details on the ROIC calculation, goal determination and goals can be answered by the finance contact for your group. The formula used in the calculation of ROIC is as follows:






						
	ROIC=	Adjusted Net Operating Profit After Tax*
	Funded Debt + Equity**




*(Earnings Before Taxes + Interest, Net) * (1- Effective Tax Rate) 
**(Average of Beginning FY21 and End of Year FY23 Funded Debt) + Beginning of Year Equity


Calculation uses fiscal year 2020 July balance sheet for beginning of fiscal year 2021 funded debt and beginning of year equity. The fiscal year 2023 July balance sheet will be used for fiscal year 2023 end of year funded debt. Funded debt is calculated by adding long-term debt plus the current portion of long-term debt plus any guarantees of funded debt.
 CHS Long-Term Incentive Plan Appendix 2021-2023 Performance Period
#### Jacalyn BROWN, etc., et al., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-1975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1977.

Bernard H. Butts, Jr., Hialeah, for appellants.

Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and Betsy Ellwanger & Hartley, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,*305 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67072-67073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33425]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2244]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

December 17, 1997.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed January 7, 1998. See Section 1.4(b) (1) 
of the Commission's rule (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must

[[Page 67073]]

be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has 
expired.
    Subject: Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange 
Marketplace Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (CC Docket No. 96-61).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 5.
    Subject: Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and 
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications act of 1996 (CC 
Docket No. 96-128).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 11.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33425 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M