alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. C. MORRIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. John F. ALLISON and David Jenkins, as Trustee, Appellee.

No. 72-879.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 1, 1973.

Worley & Gautier, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, James M. Henderson, Homestead, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

Appellant filed a complaint containing five counts. The first count prayed for specific performance of an oral lease which was for a period of more than one year. That count was tried before the court and was ordered dismissed upon a finding that the prayed for relief was barred by the Statute of Frauds.1 The second, third, fourth, and fifth counts were set for jury trial. After the jury had been impaneled for trial, the court entered a judgment dismissing the last four counts. This appeal is from the judgment granting dismissal of those counts.

The appellant concedes in argument that the second count was properly dismissed, so we therefore affirm the order of the trial judge as to that count. The third count alleges that during the period that appellant was operating on the land under an oral contract to excavate and remove limerock deposits, it stockpiled lime-rock, and placed equipment and supplies on the land, all of which are now being unlawfully detained by the appellees. The fourth count alleges conversion by the defendants of the same limerock, equipment and supplies. The fifth count alleges an unlawful enrichman of the defendants because of appellant’s expenditure of labor and material. The counts are not artfully drawn. They are subject to an order of dismissal for the failure of the pleader to comply with Rule 1.110, R.C.P. 30 F.S.A. It does not appear, however, that appellant *29is barred from a proper presentation of its claims. See Bowen v. G H C Properties, Ltd, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 359.

Appellees suggest that the trial court found from the facts that appellant, by its conduct, was estopped to recover on its claims. Such a finding would require a proceeding upon the facts, and will not support a judgment dismissing the counts without further proceedings.

The judgment appealed is affirmed as to the dismissal of the second count; the judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to the third, fourth, and fifth counts is reversed with directions to enter an order dismissing these counts with leave to amend.

Affirmed in part; reversed in .part and remanded with directions.

1

. “There was complete absence of evidence to establish any written executed contract of lease of the real property between the parties.

“The Court finds that the oral agreement, if any existed, for a three year lease of defendant ALLISON’S real property is within the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01 F.S.A., and is therefore unenforceable. See Rovin v. Garfield, Fla. App.1968 207 So 2d 10.”
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2615 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow certain applicants for paycheck 

protection program second draw loans to select a 90-day period to demonstrate eligibility, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2021 

Mr. BALDERSON (for himself and Ms. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow certain applicants 

for paycheck protection program second draw loans to 

select a 90-day period to demonstrate eligibility, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PPP Second Draw 

5 Fairness Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2615 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYCHECK PROTECTION PRO2 GRAM SECOND DRAW LOANS. 

3 Section 7(a)(37)(A)(iv)(I)(bb)(AA) of the Small 

4 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(37)(A)(iv)(I)(bb)(AA)) is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘either during any contiguous 90- 

6 day period in 2020, or’’ before ‘‘during the first’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000027326
<NAME> DAVIS WATER & WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,023
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,192
<INVENTORY>                                     19,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,795
<PP&E>                                          21,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,828
<SALES>                                        171,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,008
<CGS>                                          143,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report), that:



| | (1) | the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as May 19, 2009.



/s/ Russell D. HallRussell D. Hall President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Dennis T. NelsonDennis T. Nelson Chief Financial Officer &
Treasurer


A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be
retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A_1A                  1648482.11        5169327.5                0        373367412.4
A_1F                  3556334.18      28781299.81                0       705745553.88
A_2A                   490875.03                0                0           99000000
A_2F                     3215745                0                0          645300000
A_3F                     1599930                0                0          313200000
A_4F                   2496892.5                0                0          468900000
A_5F                  1315181.25                0                0          231750000
A_6F                  1521600.03                0                0          288000000
B                         573750                0                0          101250000
BIO                            0                0                0                  0
IOF                      5502000                0                0                  0
OC                             0                0                0                  0
R_1                            0                0                0                  0
R_2                            0                0                0                  0
R_3                            0                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. AP

- 77,036



### JUAN BALDERAS

Appellant

,

v.



### THE STATE OF TEXAS

_____________________________________________________



## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

_____________________________________________________

R. Scott Shearer

TBA No. 00786464

9 17 Franklin , Suite 3 20

Houston, Te xas 77002

(713) 254

- 5629

(713) 224

- 2889 FAX

ShearerLegal@Yahoo.com

Attorney for Appellant

(court

- appointed)

September 17, 2015 On Direct Appeal from the

179 th District Court o f Harris

County

, Texas ; Cause No.

1 412826

.

****************

THIS IS A DEATH

PENALTY CASE AP-77,036

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/17/2015 6:59:42 PM

Accepted 9/18/2015 8:45:41 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERKI.

Appellant has been notified that oral argument in the above cause has been

scheduled for Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:00 A.M.

II.

Appellant intends to argue points 3, 4, and 5 of his appellate brief concerning

the State’s use of an interpreter. Appellant also intends to argue the contents of his

reply brief concerning these same points, which is in the process of being completed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. SCOTT SHEARER

R. Scott Shear erCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this notice of appearance for oral argument has been

served upon the State of Texas by e

- mailing a copy of sam e to the following parties

at their respective addresses on this the 17 th day of September, 201 5 :

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

A.D.A. ALAN CURRY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1201 FRANKLIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

A.D.A. CLINTON MORGAN

APPELLATE DIVISION

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1201 FRANKLIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002

MORGAN_CLINTON@dao.hctx.net

/s/ R. SCOTT SHEARER

R. Scott Shear er
No. 00-7557.

#### Lorenzo-Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32969]

[[Page 66347]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-51-000]

MIECO Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 12, 1997.
    MIECO Inc. (MIECO) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which 
MIECO will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions 
as a marketer. MIECO also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, MIECO requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by MIECO.
    On November 17, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by MIECO should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, MIECO is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of MIECO's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is January 12, 1998. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32969 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### R. C. A. WAHLBERG, and Alyce M. Wahlberg, his wife, Appellants, v. MIAMI MILITARY ACADEMY, Appellee.

No. 69-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 28, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1969.

*532Morrow & Morrow, Miami, for appellants.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.

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

HENDRY, Judge.

The appellants were the plaintiffs below, having filed their suit against the appellee institution based on the recision of a contract. The theory underlying the plaintiffs’ cause of action was that they had paid advance tuition for a full semester of education and training for their step-son; through no fault of their own, their stepson left the institution after having received approximately two weeks’ education. Upon demand, the appellee refused to return any part of the advance tuition. The appellee thereafter moved for the summary judgment, filing an affidavit in support thereof, along with copies of the written application for admission executed by appellant R. C. A. Wahlberg. In that application, there was contained the following provision:

> *“I Agree:*

> 'To make no claim for the refund of any portion of the fees paid, or release from fees due, if the student is either withdrawn or dismissed prior to the expiration of the agreed enrollment period, and that any and all funds that have been paid are to be retained by the Academy as liquidated damages unless due to illness lasting longer than 30 consecutive days, certified to by the school doctor, in which case a 50% pro rata discount is allowed for the time out for said disability.”

The appellants filed their affidavit in opposition to the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, containing allegations by the student himself, which essentially stated, first, his dissatisfaction with the physical premises, the teaching and supervisory staff, his classmates, and other matters of a nature pertaining to his disappointment with various aspects of the academy. Secondly, the affidavit in opposition went on to state that, because of the reasons enumerated by the affiant, he refused to go back to the academy even though ordered to do so by his mother, and continued to so refuse to return to the academy even after his mother’s further insistence on such return.

Upon the basis of the affidavits before him, the trial judge granted the appellee’s motion for final summary judgment. We cannot agree with the decision of the trial court in that the record presents a genuine issue of material fact remaining to be decided, to-wit: whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the enrollee’s leaving of the academy constituted a withdrawal or dismissal prior to the expiration of the agreed enrollment period, pursuant to the proviso, supra, contained in the application for admission.

Therefore, the final summary judgment being appealed is hereby reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00701- CR

Johnn y F err is aka Joh nny Wayn e F err is, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 51ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. A-1 3-0 162- SB , TH E H ONO RAB LE TH OM AS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant J o h n ny Fe rris, aka J ohnny Way ne Fe rris, of the felony offe nse of e vading detention wit h a vehicle, see Tex. P enal Code § 38.04( a), (b)(2) , and, pursua nt to the habitual offe nder punishment provision of the Penal Code, assessed his punishment at 99 y ear s in the Texas Depar

tment of Criminal J ustice, see id. § 12.42(d). Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concludi n g t h at t h e appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief m eets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by p re s en t i n g a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2 0 09); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988).The rec ord ref lects that appellant’ s counsel provided a copy of the brief to appellant along with a letter advising appellant of his rig ht to examine th e appellate rec ord and file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. This Court also g ave appellant an additional 30 day s to file a pro se brief. N o pro se br ief or othe r written r esponse ha s been f iled. We have conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the rec ord prese nts no arg uably meritorious g rounds for revie w and the appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The trial court’s judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Affir med Filed: June 24, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32891]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-170; RM-8844, RM-9057]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Franklin and White Castle, LA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Annette G. Thompson, allots 
Channel 295C3 to Franklin, Louisiana, as the community's second local 
FM service. See 61 FR 44288, August 28, 1996. Channel 295C3 can be 
allotted in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance 
separation requirements without the imposition of a site restriction. 
The coordinates for Channel 295C3 at Franklin are 29-47-42 NL and 91-
30-12 WL. We also dismiss the counterproposal filed by White Castle 
Broadcasting (RM-9057) requesting the allotment of Channel 295A to 
White Castle, Louisiana. White Castle Broadcasting's counterproposal is 
not consistent with the Commission's procedural requirements. With this 
action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 20, 1998. A filing window for Channel 295C3 at 
Franklin, Louisiana, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the 
issue of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by 
the Commission in a subsequent order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-170, adopted November 19, 1997, and 
released December 5, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Louisiana, 
is amended by adding Channel 295C3 at Franklin.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-32891 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
#### Paul Louis APPELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43020.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 268 So.2d 584.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Gwen Keys lifemltrg Regiolaal AdminisrraW US. EFA, Region 4 61 

### Forsyth St., S.W. Atlanta, 

### CA 30303 =ATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMEMT OF ENVIRONMENTAND GONSERVATIQN Divfsi~n of Air Potturian Control 

### 9th Plum, Lfk(:

### Arinex 401 Church Street Naskvltle, 'IT4 3n43-1531

CERTIFIED MAIL # 7tf07 0710 0004 8572 60511 

### RETURN RECEIPT REQUEflED

Re: 

### SfP SubrnfttalAddressing Tenncsst3e'a€MigationsUnder: §Sll0[aJf,lf and (23 ofthe CleanAir Act, 

### Parad withdrawal 

### of SIP 

### Submittid
Dear 

### Ms. Fleming:
On OcA~ber19, 2009, the Division of Air Pwltution 

### Con~d submitted Tennessee%Infrastructure SIP for adoption 

### into the State lmplementarian 

### Plan, The! infrastructure 

### SIP certified that Tennessee meets 

### the required ctemmts of !$$210[aJ(f] 

### srnd (2) of the Clean Air Ant and demonstrated tht Teanessee's 

### resources and suthuritirss 

### are adeqwatc! 

### ta implement, 

### mal'nmin, and enforce the revised Nzftianal Ambient Air QttaUty 

### Standards 

### for oxant?,PMw, and 

### lead. After several dis~ussions; with Regjoa 

### 4 staffre@rding the 

### impact of the 2008 CAfR wcature upon the airpsovaM1lty af our SIP, Tennessee is withdrawing th §110[a)(2)fD)(O(I] portion of thein8astructure 

### SiP pubmimi with respect to 

### the 2Cl08 uxweNWQS. 

### fE you have any questions or comment5 concernhg the endosed marwids, piease 

### contact Travis Blake at. 

### [615f532-0617. Sincerely,

Director, 

### Division ofAir Poflutfon Contrul

CC: 

### Beverly Banister,EPA Region 

### 4 Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region rl Tennessee

### Air Pollution Con@-atBaard