alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re TRANSITION RULE 13.

No. 42980.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

In order to more efficiently provide for the filing of all matters in the courts of the State of Florida, it is necessary to promulgate certain rules with regard to the electronic filing of papers in the office of the clerk of court. The appended transition rule applies to all courts within the State Courts System and is hereby adopted effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J„ and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

*282TRANSITION RULE 13. ELECTRONIC FILING OF MATTERS IN ALL PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE STATE COURTS SYSTEM.

Any document may be filed with any county court, circuit court, district court of appeal or with the Supreme Court by means of an electronic copying device. The place of filing shall be deemed to be the place where the transmission is received. The document made at the receiving station shall be deemed the original filing and shall be so marked. The receiving party shall sign the document as having been received and filed by him. The original document shall thereafter be transmitted to the appropriate court. The sending party, if an official of the Florida State Courts System, shall collect from the party wishing to file electronically two dollars for the first page of any transmission and one dollar for each page of each filing thereafter, plus any long distance telephone charges. These monies shall be posted to the Judicial Administrative Commission or to the agency specified by law on a monthly basis to help defray the cost of renting or purchasing the transmission equipment. Any official of the Florida State Courts System who believes there is justification in his office for use of such transmitting equipment shall submit a letter of justification through the clerk and the Chief Judges of the appropriate court with which he is primarily dealing to the Supreme Court which shall approve or disapprove such use. Upon designation by the appropriate clerk of court and approval of the Supreme Court such official may accept documents for electronic transmission and filing.

During a test period from May 1 to August 1 the following areas are hereby approved by the Supreme Court for designation by the appropriate clerk’s offices for electronic receipt and transmission of filings; all clerk’s offices in Monroe, Bre-vard and Seminole Counties; all sheriff’s, public defender’s and state attorney’s offices in those counties; all clerk’s offices in Dade County and the office of the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court.

This rule is not intended to preclude the transmission by privately leased electronic devices to approved offices.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7641 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the mailbox rule 

to certain payments made through the Electronic Federal Tax Payment 

System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2020 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself and Ms. DELBENE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 

the mailbox rule to certain payments made through the 

Electronic Federal Tax Payment System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF MAILBOX RULE TO CERTAIN 

4 PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THE ELEC5 TRONIC FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT SYSTEM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7502 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7641 IH

1 ‘‘(g) PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THE ELECTRONIC

2 FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT SYSTEM.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A qualified Electronic Fed4 eral Tax Payment System payment which is required 

5 to be made within a prescribed period or on or be6 fore a prescribed date under authority of any provi7 sion of the internal revenue laws shall be treated as 

8 made on the last day of such prescribed period or 

9 on such prescribed date, as the case may be. 

10 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED ELECTRONIC FEDERAL TAX

11 PAYMENT SYSTEM PAYMENT.—For purposes of this 

12 subsection, the term ‘qualified Electronic Federal 

13 Tax Payment System payment’ means any payment 

14 if— 

15 ‘‘(A) such payment is made through the 

16 Department of the Treasury’s Electronic Fed17 eral Tax Payment System (and such payment is 

18 not required under any provision of the internal 

19 revenue laws to be made in another manner), 

20 ‘‘(B) such payment is authorized to be 

21 made at the earliest time such payment can be 

22 made through such System following such au23 thorization, and 

24 ‘‘(C) such authorization is provided within 

25 the prescribed period referred to in paragraph 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7641 IH

1 (1) or on or before the prescribed date referred 

2 to in paragraph (1), as the case may be. 

3 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, 

4 INCLUDING REQUIREMENT THAT PAYMENT BE PER5 MITTED TO BE MADE BY MAILING.—For certain pay6 ments to which this subsection does not apply, see 

7 subsection (d).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                             SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


                                         Dated: November 28, 2000



AMN Holdings, Inc.
12235 El Camino Real
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130

Gentlemen:

                  1. The undersigned hereby subscribes for 13,538.5 shares of
Common Stock, par value of One Cent ($.01) a share, of AMN Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"). Payment therefor will be made in cash
for an aggregate consideration of $4,440,000.

                  2. The shares subscribed for hereunder (the "Shares"), when
issued, shall be fully paid and non-assessable and the certificates therefor
shall so state.

                  3. The undersigned hereby:

                           3.1 represents and warrants that the undersigned has
such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that the
undersigned is capable of utilizing the information that is available to the
undersigned concerning the Corporation to evaluate the risks of investment in
the Corporation;

                           3.2 acknowledges that the undersigned has been
advised that the Shares have not been registered under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Act") and, accordingly, that the undersigned may not be
able to sell or otherwise dispose of the Shares when the undersigned wishes to
do so;
<PAGE>   2
                                                                               2

                           3.3 represents and warrants that the Shares are being
purchased by the undersigned for the undersigned's own sole benefit and account
for investment and not with a view to, or for resale in connection with, a
public offering or distribution thereof;

                           3.4 agrees that the Shares will not be resold (a)
without registration thereof under the Act (unless an exemption from such
registration is available) or (b) in violation of any law;

                           3.5 consents that the certificate or certificates
representing the Shares may be impressed with a legend indicating that the
Shares are not registered under the Act and reciting that transfer thereof is
restricted; and

                           3.6 consents that stop transfer instructions in
respect of the Shares may be issued to any transfer agent, transfer clerk or
other agent at any time acting for the Corporation.

                              Very truly yours,

                              BANCAMERICA CAPITAL INVESTORS SBIC I,
                              L.P.


                              By: /s/ BancAmerica Capital Investors SBIC I, L.P.
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name:
                                  Title:


Accepted:  As of November 28, 2000

AMN HOLDINGS, INC.


By:/s/ Steven C. Francis
   ----------------------------------
   Name:  Steven C. Francis
   Title: President
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8162 

AN ACT 

To express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Education should provide certain waivers to community 

learning centers, 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, 
2 

•HR 8162 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century Commu3 nity Learning Centers Coronavirus Relief Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FLEXIBLE USE 

5 OF SUBGRANT FUNDS. 

6 It is the sense of Congress that for school year 2020– 

7 2021, notwithstanding each provision in part B of title 

8 IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

9 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.) that requires activities 

10 under such part be carried out during nonschool hours or 

11 periods when school is not in session, the Secretary of 

12 Education should carry out the exceptions included in the 

13 notice entitled ‘‘Agency Information Collection Activities; 

14 Comment Request; 21st CCLC 4201(b)(1) Waiver Re15 quest’’, published by the Department of Education in the 

16 Federal Register on September 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 

17 55002) by providing that each eligible entity that is 

18 awarded a subgrant under section 4204 of such Act (20 

19 U.S.C. 7174) for community learning centers may use 

20 such subgrant funds— 

21 (1) to carry out activities described in section 

22 4205 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7175), regardless of 

23 whether such activities are conducted in-person or 

24 virtually, or during school hours or when school is 

25 in session; and 

26 (2) to provide in-person care during— 
3 

•HR 8162 EH

1 (A) the regular school day for students eli2 gible to receive services under part B of title IV 

3 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.); and 

4 (B) a period in which full-time in-person 

5 instruction is not available for all such students 

6 served by such eligible entity. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8162 

AN ACT 

To express the sense of Congress that the Secretary 

poses. community learning centers, and for other purof Education should provide certain waivers to
Exhibit99.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I,Douglas W. Sabra, certify that:

1.                   I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10‐QSB of Forward Industries, Inc.;

2.                   Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.                   Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.                   The registrant's other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a‐14 and 15d‐14)for the registrant and we have:

a)                  designed such disclosure controlsand procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

b)                  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "EvaluationDate"); and

c)                  presented in this quarterly reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.                   The registrant's other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

d)                  all significant deficiencies inthe design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial dataand have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and

e)                  any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.                   The registrant's other certifyingofficers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not therewere significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent  to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 22, 2003

/s/DouglasW. SabraDouglas W. SabraChiefFinancial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Max C. BURTON, Incompetent.

No. 2642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 16, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q the quarter ending January 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I StuartI. Greenwald, Treasurer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

          Stuart I. Greenwald           Stuart I. GreenwaldTreasurer & Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 17, 2006
#### Wallace C. E. LEVEILLE, Petitioner, v. Clifton H. SINK et al., Respondents.

No. 43305.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 489.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### New York City Housing Authority, Landlord, Appellant, *v.*Max Bitchatchi, Tenant, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

January 15, 1953.

*Harold Weintraub, Irving Wise*and *Harry Levy*for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It is undisputed that the tenant misrepresented the facts as to the annual income of the members of his family. Upon termination of the tenancy by appropriate notice, the landlord became entitled to a final order. *(New York City Housing Authority*v. *Daly,*50 N. Y. S. 2d 444, motion for leave to appeal denied 263 App. Div. 835; *Syracuse Housing Authority*v. *Colgiovanni,*191 Misc. 728, affd. 273 App. Div. 801.) Neither the extensions of the stay of warrant voluntarily granted to the tenant nor the change of his family status subsequent to the entry of the final order afforded any basis for setting the same aside. *(Downs*v. *Mortimer,*73 N. Y. S. 2d 416.)

*452The order setting aside final order and directing new trial should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $10 costs to the landlord and final order reinstated. Issuance of warrant stayed to February 28, 1953, upon condition that on or before January 31, 1953, the tenant pay to the landlord all rent due to February 28, 1953, plus all costs.

Walsh, Golden and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Bess Hall GERONNE, Appellant, v. Harry E. GERONNE, Appellee.

No. 41934.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1973.

Charles W. Burke, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

William A. Beam, Jr., of Ferree & Beam, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed upon authority of Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So.2d 266 (Fla.1973), also filed this date.

CARLTON, C. J., ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and WIGGIN-TON, District Court Judge, concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion.

ROBERTS, Justice

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So.2d 266 (Fla.1973).

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

The Petition for Rehearing is granted in part and appellant is hereby allowed an attorney’s fee of $350; and in all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., and WIGGINTON, District Court Judge, dissent.
#### Dorothy R. HOGUE, Appellant, v. Jerry F. HOGUE, Appellee.

No. 73-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
April 7, 2011

To Whom it May Concern:

The use of private aviation, namely private jets, in the lifesaving work of flying transplant teams is an

invaluable tool responsible for the saving of lives. Every year thousands of individuals die because they

were not able to get their organ needs met in time. Often, these cases are cases that we have no

control over. However, there are times that limitations due to crew logistics, duty time, flight time and

airport access have played a role in the inability to perform a mission.

Transplant Transportation Services provides air and ground logistical support to many of the nation’s

leading transplant centers. Among the providers we use, Chrysler Aviation has played a critical role in

the transportation of organs throughout the United States. Often times, these aircraft and crews will

depart their home base of operations and we will request that they pick up a medical team that could be

as far as an hour away. From that point, the team is flown to the donor hospital, the organs are

procured, and the crew flies the team back to meet an ambulance, sedan or local law enforcement

vehicles that rush the organ to the operating room. The timing is so critical in these cases, that

recipients are being prepped for the receipt of their new “gift” while the airplane is still in the air.

Unfortunately, there are instances where unforeseen delays take place in the donor operating room

while the organs are being procured. These can range from OR delays due to other trauma cases

arriving in the hospital, the need to stabilize the donor, family goodbyes and recipient preparation.

These delays, which are unforeseen, can impact the amount of time that a crew is standing by at the

airport. There have been instances where, because of duty limitations, we’ve had to further delay the

procedures in order to swap crews, or call in another airplane. This is an incredible financial burden on

the system, not to mention the potential risks associated with any delay surrounding the transplantation

of an organ to a sick or dying recipient.

As of this very moment, there are 72,257 active donors awaiting organs. The list of those waiting now

exceeds 110,000. In January 2011 there were 2,406 successful transplants. Not all of these by air, but the

majority of those organs flew from one point to another with a caring crew and skilled physicians on board

and aircraft. We are proud to be a part of that cause.

We would respectfully request that consideration be given to a limited exemption to the duty time

requirements for life saving missions that, without such an exemption, could jeopardize the life of a recipient.

Safety in the skies is paramount, and can never be compromised. It is our belief that with a very controlled

exemption, we can save the lives of more people without compromising air safety.

Respectfully,

Scott M Pritchard

President

Transplant Transportation Services, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reportdated December 8, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsincluded in the Annual Report of Versant Corporation on Form 10-Kfor the year ended October 31, 2006. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the previously filed RegistrationStatements of Versant Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-67776,333-87922, 333-107956, 333-113871, 333-125368, and 333-130601).
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| San Francisco, CA      |   |
| January 26, 2007  |   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2015

d0921

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2015

149438(21)

SNOW COUNTRY CONTRACTING, INC., and

THOMAS L. SCHNELLER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 149438

COA: 318671

Gogebic CC: 12-000010-AA

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF IRONWOOD 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 3, 

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.