alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis E. CHANDLER et ux. v. Lurline W. RUSHING.

No. 8387.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1971.

A. Clay Pierce, Jr., of Pierce & Malone, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

*424Robert H. Carpenter, Jr., of Mengis & Durant, and Doris Falkenheiner, Asst. Director, Legal Aid, Baton Rouge, for appel-lee.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TUCKER, JJ.

TUCKER, Judge.

Since there is one of the six estates to which this servitude is owed involved in our Docket No. 8387, one-sixth *(i/¿)*of the total damages of $500.00 awarded here are attributable to the defendant in this suit.

For the reasons assigned in the suit entitled Smith et al. v. Chandler et ux, No. 8386 on the docket of this court, 251 So.2d 417, the judgment of the trial court is amended by increasing the indemnification award for the damages caused by the creation of the servitude from Thirty-Two and 33/100 ($32.33) Dollars to Eighty-Three and 33/100 ($83.33) Dollars, and in all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Mrs. Lurline W. Rushing, will post the costs of this appeal.

Affirmed as amended.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333.58684, 333.45638, 333.66065, 333.72288, 333.81430 and 333.103639 ofRestoration Hardware Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 andRegistration Statement No. 333.70624 on Form S-3 of (i) our report dated April14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements of RestorationHardware, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement described inNote 2) and (ii) our report dated April 14, 2005 relating to managements reporton internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this annual reporton Form 10-K of Restoration Hardware Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal yearended January 29, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on Management’sassessment of internal controls and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a materialweaknesses). 
| /s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
|-------------------------------------|
| San Francisco, California           |
| April 14, 2005                 |

 

----
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 November 2005

(2005/C 277/04)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### Walter Douglas TOOLE, Appellant, v. Patricia McCahill TOOLE, Appellee.

No. 72-1055.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                           Exhibit 23.5

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                           
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
on Form S-8 (333-01574), (333-12789) and (333-24581); Form S-3 (333-10383) 
and (333-14025); and Form S-4 (333-13133) of U.S. Office Products Company of 
our report, with respect to the financial statements of Data Business Forms 
Limited for the period ended December 31, 1995, dated February 6, 1996, 
appearing on page F-8 of U.S. Office Products Company's Annual Report on Form 
10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended April 26, 1997.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG
Chartered Accountants

Toronto, Canada
August 18, 1997
#### David S. HEDDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-65.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Rufus TOLBERT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, fo-r appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Mortellaro v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 815; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 517; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 169; and Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                             
                                                                   
<ARTICLE>      5

                                                                   
<S>                             <C>                                
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUL-31-1998     
<CASH>                                                 127,285                                           
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,046,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3,233,750
<PP&E>                                               3,249,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,663,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       6,002,276         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                7,484,094   
<BONDS>                                                493,395
<COMMON>                                               130,048
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            110,858
<OTHER-SE>                                          (2,226,109)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         6,002,276
<SALES>                                              5,503,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5,503,065
<CGS>                                                4,540,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,540,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     100,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (137,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (137,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (137,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.01)
                                                     
                                                     

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1





Fleming Companies, Inc.
6301 Waterford Boulevard
P. O. Box 26647
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73126

We   have   made  reviews,  in  accordance  with   standards
established  by  the American Institute of Certified  Public
Accountants,  of  the following unaudited interim  financial
information  of Fleming Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries  as
indicated  in our reports referenced below; because  we  did
not  perform  an  audit, we expressed  no  opinion  on  that
information.

      Period Ended              Review Report Dated

     April 7, 1999               May 5, 1999
     July 11, 1999               July 29, 1999
     October 2, 1999             October 19, 1999
     April 15, 2000              May 3, 2000

We  are aware that our reports referred to above, which  are
included in your Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q and  10-Q/A
for  the  periods mentioned above, are being  used  in  this
registration statement.

We  also are aware that the aforementioned reports, pursuant
to  Rule  436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933,  are  not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared  or
certified by an accountant, or reports prepared or certified
by  an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
June 30, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13180]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 20, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 14, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 81 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-174, CP2018-246.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-13180 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. George W. PROVOST, Respondent.

No. 42722.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 21, 1973.

Robert J. O’Toole, Ft. Lauderdale, for The Florida Bar.

George W. Provost, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

In this Bar discipline case, we have for review on petition of The Florida Bar, a recommendation of a one-year suspension arising from a finding of improper conduct on the part of respondent, George W. Provost.

Provost was found guilty by the referee of misuse of the funds of an escrow account which he established with the proceeds of a real estate transaction to accomplish the paying off of an existing mortgage. Provost admitted that he had used part of the over $4,000.00 held in escrow for his own purposes, but the record shows that the mortgage was paid in full by Provost four months after the closing.

The referee found Provost not guilty of two other charges raised in the complaint against him, and the Bar does not dispute those findings. Provost does not protest the finding of guilt on the one count. Neither Provost nor the Bar protests the one-year suspension, and after a complete review of the record, we believe the recommendation of a one-year suspension is proper.

The one issue raised by the Bar is the absence of a requirement of proof of rehabilitation prior to Provost’s reinstatement in the Bar. Art. XI, Rule 11.10(3), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., has been amended effective December 1, 1972, to require that proof of rehabilitation be mandatory with any suspension of three months or more. As the order of discipline by this Court is being rendered subsequent to December 1, 1972, the requirement of proof of rehabilitation automatically attaches.

It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the respondent, George W. Provost, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with proof of rehabilitation being required, and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $62.00.

And it is further ordered that if Provost files his petition for reinstatement with the Bar at least three months prior to the run*226ning of his suspension, the Bar must make its objections to such reinstatement known to this Court prior to the running of the suspension period.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, DC



The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that Annual Report of Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and will be retained by Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Leslie J. Christon               
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|March 26, 2004                       



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Warren R. Nelson                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 26, 2004
1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4328

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jorge A. Fernandez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2006 Filed: December 14, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Fernandez appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A ), and 846. His counsel has moved to withdraw, filing a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). On appeal, Fernandez’s counsel argues th e district court erred in sentencing Fernandez to 120 months in prison. We di sagree, because in the circumstances here,-2- the district court had no authority to sentence Fernandez below the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), whic h apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defe ndant qualifies for sa fety-valve relief). Having carefully reviewed the recordin accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 1, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,742
<INVENTORY>                                     57,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,481
<PP&E>                                         198,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,354
<BONDS>                                          6,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,665
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,977
<SALES>                                        361,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,554
<CGS>                                          245,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,622)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,666
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,666
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 10.62


                DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN

     Bonus targets are established as a percent of pay based on pay level. If
both the individual and plan objectives are achieved, the plan is designed to
produce a bonus ranging, on a sliding scale, from a threshold amount if the plan
objectives are minimally achieved up to a maximum amount if such objectives are
substantially exceeded. For fiscal 2001, the threshold bonus level was
established at an amount that, when added to base salary, could be less than
the 50th percentile of total salary and bonus for comparable positions in
comparison surveys utilized by the Compensation Committee. Thus, total salary
and bonus for executive officers (assuming achievement of all individual and
corporate objectives) is designed to range from less than the 50th up to the
75th percentile of total salary and bonus for comparable positions in the
comparison surveys.

     Frederick W. Smith's bonus is determined by whether corporate business plan
objectives are met or exceeded. If such objectives are met, the Compensation
Committee determines and recommends to the Board of Directors a bonus that, when
combined with base salary, may be up to the 75th percentile of total salary and
bonus for chief executive officers in the comparison surveys discussed above.
Mr. Smith received an annual bonus of $940,827 for fiscal 2001, that,
together with his base salary, is below the 75th percentile of total salary and
bonus for chief executive officers in the comparison surveys used by the
Compensation Committee.
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent
------

Coastal Financial Corporation


Subsidiary                                      Percentage       State of
                                                Owned            Incorporation

Coastal Federal Bank                            100%             United States

Coastal Investor Services, Inc.                 100%             South Carolina

Coastal Financial Capital Trust I               100%             Delaware

Coastal Planners Holding Corporation (1)        100%             Delaware

Coastal Retirement Estate and Tax               100%             South Carolina
  Planners, Inc. (4)

Coastal Federal Holding Corporation (1)         100%             Delaware

Coastal Real Estate Investment                  100%             North Carolina
  Corporation (3)

Coastal Mortgage Bankers and                    100%             South Carolina
  Realty Co., Inc. (1)

Sherwood Development                            100%             South Carolina
  Corporation (2)


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


(1)   First tier subsidiaries of Coastal Federal Bank.
(2)   Second tier  subsidiary of Coastal  Federal Bank and first tier subsidiary
      of Coastal Mortgage Bankers and Realty.
(3)   First tier operating  subsidiary of Coastal Federal  Holding  Corporation,
      consolidated with Coastal Federal for Regulatory Reporting.
(4)   First tier operating subsidiary of Coastal Planners Holding Corporation.
Exhibit 23.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in thisRegistration Statement on Form S-8 of Captiva Software Corporation (formerlyknown as ActionPoint, Inc.) of our report dated April 8, 2002 relating to thefinancial statements of Captiva Software Corporation for the three years endedDecember 31, 2001, which appears in ActionPoint, Inc.'s Registration Statementon Form S-4 (No. 333-87106) dated June 24, 2002. 

 

 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Diego, California

August 15, 2002
# Official Journal C 260A/22 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 260A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4722 October 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 260A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4722 October 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 260A/1 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 23rd complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 260A/1

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 23rd complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 20

- 00195

- CR

IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator ’ s original app lication for writ of mandamus is denied.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

B efore Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Application for writ of mandamus denied

Opinion delivered and filed August 19, 2020

[ OT 06]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert B. WILSON.

No. 61836.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.