alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Wesley WARD et al., Appellants, v. Theresa OCHOA et al., Appellees.

No. 71-324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 11, 1972.

*174R. Edward Campbell, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

John A. Gentry, III, and John Paul Jones, Jr., of Moyle, Gentry, Jones & Flani-gan, West Palm Beach for appellee-There-sa Ochoa.

Stephen C. McAliley, of Carlton, Brennan & McAliley, West Palm Beach, for appellees-Karen Diane Brinkman and Allstate Ins. Co.

OWEN, Judge.

On the authority of the opinion we have filed this date in the case of Maule Industries, Inc. et al. v. Rountree, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So.2d 445, we find that the court erred in denying appellants’ pretrial and posttrial motions for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce for inspection and copying the agreement which she had entered into before trial with the remaining defendants.

We conclude from our examination of the record that such error did not result in prejudicial harm to appellants during the trial of this cause. Hence, there is no reason to disturb the verdict for the plaintiff or to grant appellants a new trial.

We cannot determine that the error was harmless as pertains to the entry of the judgment. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings to afford appellants the opportunity to apply to the trial court for any setoff to which they may be entitled under the provisions of F.S. Section 768.041(2), F.S.A. Thereafter, plaintiff-appellee shall be entitled to have judgment entered in her favor against appellants for the amount of the verdict less any setoff to which appellants shall be found entitled.

Appellants’ remaining point on appeal is without merit. Stecher v. Pomeroy, Fla. 1971, 253 So.2d 421.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

C. J., and WALDEN, J., con-REED, cur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

William E. Kovacic

J. Thomas Rosch

Edith Ramirez

Julie Brill

 

)

)

In the Matter of )

)

Universal Appliances, Kitchens, and Baths, Inc., )

 d/b/a universal-akb.com, ) File No. 102 3042 

a corporation. )

)

 )

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY

1. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) hereby provides this Notice

of Proposed Civil Penalty (“Notice”) to Universal Appliances, Kitchens, and Baths, Inc., d/b/a

universal-akb.com (“Respondent”). Specifically, the Commission proposes a $100,000 civil

penalty for violations of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq., and the

Commission’s Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of

Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,

16 C.F.R. Part 305 (“Appliance Labeling Rule”).

2. Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.93(b), Respondent has thirty (30) days from receipt of

this Notice to elect either the procedures set forth in Rule 1.95 or those set forth in Rule 1.94. 

Respondent must file the election in accordance with Commission Rule 4.2 and may include a

response explaining why the proposed penalty should not issue, should be reduced, or should

otherwise be modified. The Commission will then make a final determination regarding the

need for, and amount of, any civil penalty. If Respondent chooses to follow Rule 1.94, or fails to

make a timely selection, the Commission may issue a complaint and follow the procedures set

forth in 16 C.F.R. Part 3. 
 

Page 2 of 2

3. For your convenience the Commission has attached copies of the relevant Rules. 

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 1.93, please find attached a copy of the proposed complaint

against Respondent.

Issued this twentieth day of October, 2010, against proposed Respondent.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL:
No. D-2230.

#### In re Disbarment of Meneilly.

James K. Meneilly, of Westbury, N. Y., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on January 8, 2001 *[ante,*p. 1066], is discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 262 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 262

 To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of 
                  Federal law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2021

  Ms. Pressley (for herself, Ms. Adams, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Bass, Mrs. 
   Beatty, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. 
      Bowman, Mr. Brown, Ms. Bush, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Clark of 
 Massachusetts, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Connolly, Mr. 
  Cooper, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Dean, Ms. DeGette, Ms. 
    DelBene, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Evans, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. 
Hastings, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Jones, 
 Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Gomez, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee 
 of California, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, 
  Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. 
  Norton, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Omar, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Pingree, Mr. 
Pocan, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, 
 Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Spanberger, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, 
Ms. Tlaib, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Trone, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs. Watson Coleman, 
   Mr. Welch, and Ms. Wild) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of 
                  Federal law, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Death Penalty Prohibition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
person may be sentenced to death or put to death on or after the date 
of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law.
    (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, any person sentenced to death before the 
date of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law shall be 
resentenced.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.01

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Di Giorgio Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard B.
Neff, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence S. Grossman, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


/s/ Richard B. Neff
---------------------------
Richard B. Neff
Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2003


/s/ Lawrence S. Grossman
--------------------------
Lawrence S. Grossman
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003


This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 23     


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form  S-8  (File  nos.  333-03106  and  333-15693)  and Form  S-3  (File  No.
333-25469)  of our report  dated  March 14, 1997 on the  consolidated  financial
statements of VIMRX  Pharmaceuticals Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of
December  31,  1996 and for each of the years in the two year  period then ended
included in the Company's 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
New York, New York
March 25, 1998
EXHIBIT 11.3

<TABLE>

CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Sixteen-weeks Ended November 14, 1998 and November 8, 1997

<CAPTION>
                                          Sixteen-weeks Ended 
                                         ----------------------
                                          Nov. 14,    Nov. 8,  
                                            1998        1997   
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to 
    common shares                        $  6,051     $   (725)
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,677       17,483 
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,716)      (5,612)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,961       11,871 
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $   0.61     $  (0.06)
                                         =========    =========
</TABLE>













                              29
#### Charlie GUNNING, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Municipal corporation, and Lester Berry, Respondents.

No. 73-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JUAN RAMON CABEZAS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-10138D.C. No. 3:11-CR-00064-HDMWGC-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014 **

San Francisco, California Before: D.W. NELSON, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Juan Cabezas (Cabezas) pled guilty to one count each of mail fraud, bank fraud, tax evasion, money la undering, and aggravated identity theft, and received four concurrent 63-month sentences followed by a 24-month sentence to be served 

# FILED
MAY 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).consecutively. Cabezas appeals the districtcourt’s imposition of an abuse of trust enhancement, the court’s alleged failure to address the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and the court’s purported reliance on unreliable victim statements during sentencing. We affirm. As Cabezas concedes, a factual and le gal basis for the abuse of trust enhancements exists. While his plea ag reement did not contemplate the imposition of this enhancement, the plea agreemen t was not binding on the court. Moreover, the district court imposed a within-Gui delines sentence, and Cabezas had already conceded that his Guidelines range fell within the neighborhood of sentences imposed in similar cases. No further explanation was required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A within-Guidelines sentence ordinarily needs little explanation . . . because both the Commission and the sentencing judge have determined that the sentence comports with the § 3553(a) factors and is appropriate in the ordinary case.”). Finally, regardless of whether the vic tims’ statements at sentencing were unreliable, they do not provide a basis for vacating Cabezas’ sentence because they were not “demonstrably made the basis for the sentence.” United States v. Ibarra , 737 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1984). Instead, the district court based Cabezas’ sentence on the amount of loss, Cabezas’ failure to stop embezzling money despitean opportunity to walk away, the abuse of trust, and Cabezas’ payment of full restitution. AFFIRMED.
### Regulatory Evaluation

# DocketNo.FAA-~~**'_3-CJq** :3Q 

# 2.015- JJM- 

## 040 

# -A- i) Directorate Identifier: -AD


### ! l you make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. (( they do 

### no t, c bck (or Tab) 

### into and 

### then out ofrhe changed ce ll.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Initial Inspection 

### .+6- $0 

### -8fT" 

### l 

# "+ <?**~** 

### ...,.... 

### L....O 

### ITfOi .c<> 

### ,go \ri]O ,dl> 

## ! 2!5:1 

## h o f',i / n il**<~ ~**  1 {I 

## "
''I! I I \1 tl {'' I '), !J(I ( I ( .I I j ' ! 

### ,,
! 

### ' \ It 'l ( {! 

### u

c ! () () ) 

### n ' (t 

### '·' .I H '' (o( I I 'J H 1, ll ()P •l I I
I 

## on I' I ) ( t, Oft ('l (! 

### : 

## '" I,
' ,l 

### on { \ II \ )() I,
The known number of products in compliance: 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,800 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if 

### known) $0
On-Condition Costs: Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection , (include access, (@$85 /hour)

replacement) testing , and closeup) 

### Replacement of i&LtoO**~** 

### 11655**.:! :'** **{~,of<:>..,,,** [' 

### Fastener 3

.0 "' () (\ <, I, dl, II 1 { I'(· I tiP 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

## fe, ev.jill<?o f

# ,

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory

# action**~** YES* 

# D NO 

# IZI *Explanation : 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

# IZI *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. - YES 

# D NO 

# IZI Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

# IZI

* Explanation:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 718 

To designate the Federal building located at 158–15 Liberty Avenue in 

Jamaica, Queens, New York, as the ‘‘Floyd H. Flake Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2019 

Mr. MEEKS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 158–15 Liberty 

Avenue in Jamaica, Queens, New York, as the ‘‘Floyd 

H. Flake Federal Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 158–15 Liberty Ave5 nue in Jamaica, Queens, New York, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘Floyd H. Flake Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 718 IH

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘Floyd H. Flake Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7223 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify certain requirements 

of the railway-highway crossings program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. PENCE (for himself and Ms. BROWNLEY of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify certain 

requirements of the railway-highway crossings program, 

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 ‘‘Railway Upgrades for 

5 Rural American Lines Act’’ or the ‘‘RURAL Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS PROGRAM. 

7 Section 130 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7223 IH

1 (1) in subsection (e)(1)(A) by striking ‘‘and the 

2 installation of protective devices’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

3 the installation of protective devices, and the re4 placement of functionally obsolete warning devices’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (f)(3) by striking ‘‘90 per6 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘100 percent’’; and 

7 (3) in subsection (i)(3)(B) by striking ‘‘$7,500’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Jerry Lewis GRAHAM v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46152.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 21, 1970.

Gene Brown, Granville Jones, Meridian, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Velia Ann Mayer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Daniel Patrick GRANEY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wilson C. RIPPY, Jr., M.D., et al., Defendants.

No. 77-625.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1977.

Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & Genders, Tampa, Robert Orseck.of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, P. A., Miami, for plaintiffs.

Benjamin H. Hill, III, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P. A., Tampa, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was submitted to this court upon certified question under Fla.App. Rule 4.6. The questions presented are:

> 1. DOES THE JURISDICTION OF A MEDICAL MEDIATION PANEL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE AFTER EXPIRATION OF 120 DAYS FROM THE DATE A CLAIM IS FILED WHEN:

> (a) THE CLERK HAD NOT SET A HEARING DATE;

> (b) THE 120 DAYS PERIOD HAD EXPIRED;

> (c) NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD REQUESTED AN EXTENSION WITHIN THE 120 DAYS PERIOD; AND

> (d) ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION HAD STIPULATED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE MEDIATION HEARING, SUCH STIPULATION BEING ENTERED INTO SUBSEQUENT TO THE RUNNING OF THE 120 DAYS PERIOD?

> 2. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION # 1 IS IN THE NEGATIVE, ARE THE PARTIES BOUND BY THE TIME REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 768.133(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, 1975, OR THE TIME SET OUT IN THE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WHICH TO MEDIATE THE CLAIM?

> 3. IF THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE STATUTORY TIME REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN # 2 ABOVE, IS THE MAXIMUM STATUTORY LIMIT FOR MEDIATION 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM IS FILED OR 10 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM IS FILED?

In our view the questions certified do not meet the prerequisites of the aforesaid rule. Since the supreme court has recently adopt*846ed Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure,1 it now appears that sufficient guidance is available to the trial court to make its own determination of the questions.

Accordingly, we decline to answer the questions.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

GRIMES, J., dissents with opinion.

1

. *In re The Florida Bar (In re Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure),*348 So.2d 547 (Fla. 1977).

GRIMES, Judge,

dissenting.

I would go ahead and answer the questions because I do not believe that the Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure adopted subsequent to the events involved in this case constitute “controlling precedent” for purposes of Fla.App. Rule 4.6a dealing with certified questions.

I respectfully dissent.
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT TO THE

SPX CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT RETIREMENT PLAN

 

SPX Corporation currently maintains the SPX Corporation Supplemental Individual Account Retirement Plan (the “Plan”).  Pursuant to the powers of amendment reserved in Section 6.1 of the Plan, effective as of March 10, 2014, SPX Corporation hereby amends the Plan in the following manner:

 

1.              Section 8.1(a) of the Plan is amended by replacing the phrase “twenty percent (20%)” with “twenty-five percent (25%)” wherever such phrase occurs therein.

 

2.              Section 8.1(a)(iii)(B)(1) of the Plan is amended by deleting the phrase “(other than rights under the Company’s Rights Agreement dated June 25, 1996 with The Bank of New York, as amended)” in its entirety.

 

3.              Section 8.1(c) of the Plan is amended by replacing the phrase “Approval by the shareholders of (or if such approval is not required, the consummation of)” with “The consummation of”.

 

4.              Section 8.1(c) of the Plan is amended by replacing the phrase “eighty percent (80%)” with “seventy-five percent (75%)”.

 

5.              Section 8.3 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Section 8.3                              RESERVED”