alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John RUBLE and Deborah Ruble, Appellants, v. E. A. ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 71-693.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6279

WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00035-GEC-PMS) 

Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as 

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of 

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdul-Sabur has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Kenneth GRAY, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Mrs. Delane Gray Dierlam, and Mrs. Delane Gray, Petitioners, v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ST. PETERSBURG, Respondent.

No. 41965.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 255 So.2d 578.

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

ERVIN and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
#### George RUBIN, Appellant, v. Philip MASTERS, Jr., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 71-406, 71-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
This is a request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small unmanned 

aerial systems on land controlled by clients of Jesse Perry Digital Productions.

Jesse Perry Digital Productions respectfully requests an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small unmanned aerial systems 

(sUAS) to assist in the production of real estate listing marketing videos for our clients. This request is 

motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety and provide assurances to clients that proper 

safety training and professionalism will be maintained during filming of said videos. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Jesse Perry

143 Sugar Mill Circle

Savannah, GA 31419

(912) 247-3137

anomaly0001@gmail.com
#### Clyde MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2616.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE, use of CAUSEY, *vs.*JAMES LOFLAND.

To prove a levy, the execution must be shown.

Debt on a constable’s bond. Narr. Oyer. Plea, “ performance.” Replication suggesting breaches. The breach assigned was, that defendant refused to pay the proceeds of goods sold by him to plaintiff’s execution, which had a prior lien.

The plaintiff, after proving his judgment, offered the original levy and inventory without producing the execution. Thé judgment docket stated that an execution had issued.

*Ridgely,*for plaintiff

*Brinckloe,*for defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The 17th section of the act *“*providing for the recovery of small debts,” requires the constable to return the execution with a certificate thereon under his hand of all his proceedings; and with an inventory and appraisement if there shall have been a levy made. The inventory and appraisement have a necessary connection with the execution, and that connection must be shown. It must appear that the levy was made by lawful authority in execution of the judgment, and we do not see how we can admit evidence of the levy without showing the execution, or proving its loss. It may be, as is alledged in this case, that there was no lawful execution, and no authority therefore to make the levy.

Plaintiff nonsuited.
# C_2022222EN.01002503.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stade — Germany) — Applicant 1, Applicant 2, Antragsteller 3, Applicant 4, Applicant 5 v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-504/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/39)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          65,648
<SECURITIES>                                    36,386
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,143)
<INVENTORY>                                        247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,819
<PP&E>                                          29,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,576)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       134,594
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,244
<SALES>                                        162,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,232
<CGS>                                           25,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,218)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019392EN.01000601.xml

| 19.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 November 2019

(2019/C 392/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1061 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,55 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4726 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6603 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0960 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 135,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0860 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,593 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 335,27 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2915 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7744 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,3316 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6242 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4622 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6593 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7275 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5047 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 289,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3463 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7629 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4400 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 588,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5964 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,081 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,6242 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,443 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,6201 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2907 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,4260 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1061

JPY

Japanese yen

120,55

DKK

Danish krone

7,4726

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85330

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6603

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0960

ISK

Iceland króna

135,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0860

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,593

HUF

Hungarian forint

335,27

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2915

RON

Romanian leu

4,7744

TRY

Turkish lira

6,3316

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6242

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4622

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6593

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7275

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5047

KRW

South Korean won

1 289,14

ZAR

South African rand

16,3463

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7629

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4400

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 588,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5964

PHP

Philippine peso

56,081

RUB

Russian rouble

70,6242

THB

Thai baht

33,443

BRL

Brazilian real

4,6201

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2907

INR

Indian rupee

79,4260

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
257 La. 861

#### Dan A. RITCHEY, Jr., et al. v. James H. DESSER et al.

No. 51167.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1971.

In re: Dan A. Ritchey, Jr. and E. J. Chatelain applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 242 So.2d 107.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date:  May 5, 2008
    
    /s/ Jeffrey S. GormanJeffrey S. GormanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) /s/ Robert E. KirkendallRobert E. KirkendallSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)  20
<Page>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                       JURISDICTION OF
                ENTITY                                  ORGANIZATION
            ---------------                            ---------------
MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES WESTERN US OPERATIONS,           CALIFORNIA
INC.

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY                    DELAWARE
OPERATIONS, INC.

MSL LOWELL OPERATIONS, INC.                               DELAWARE

MSL SPV SPAIN, INC.                                       DELAWARE

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES CENTRAL US OPERATIONS,           MINNESOTA
INC.

MSL DE PUERTO RICO, INC.                                PUERTO RICO

MSL FRANCE OPERATIONS                                      FRANCE

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES ATHLONE LIMITED                   IRELAND

MSL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDH BHD                MALAYSIA

MSL DE MEXICO S.A.                                         MEXICO

MSL OVERSEAS FINANCE B.V.                               NETHERLANDS

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.              SINGAPORE

GLOBAL MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES VALENCIA S.A.               SPAIN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements included in the Form 10-K of American Safety Razor
Company for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    40462
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2558
<INVENTORY>                                      43866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 89342
<PP&E>                                           95034
<DEPRECIATION>                                   34012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  229997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            35650
<BONDS>                                         110762
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                       44402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    229997
<SALES>                                         260636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                260636
<CGS>                                           169949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   169949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   593
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21598
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022359EN.01000901.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl v European Commission

(Case C-371/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - The MARSOL Project - Eligible costs - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment of sums paid - Right to access OLAF’s file - Right to be heard - Burden of proof - Distortion of the facts - Probative value - Principle of proportionality - Unjust enrichment)

(2022/C 359/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl (represented by: V. Catenacci, F.S. Marini and R. Viglietta, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.

---
* * * PUBLIC NOTICE * * *

McELMO CREEK UNIT OIL PRODUCTION FACILITY

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

On October 15, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 

proposed to amend the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, in accordance with 

PSD air quality regulations (40 CFR 52.21), for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility 

(MCU Facility), an existing oil and gas production operation. The MCU Facility is owned, in 

partnership with the Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Company, and operated by the Resolute Natural 

Resources Company. The facility is located in Section 31, Township 40 South, Range 25 East 

within the Four Corners Area on the Navajo Nation Reservation near the town of Aneth, San 

Juan County, Utah.

EPA’s proposed amendments to the PSD permit include adding pollution limits, terms and 

conditions for the already existing Main Flare at the MCU Facility pursuant to a federal Consent 

Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S. Inc., Case No. 2:05-CV-319, 

filed June 8, 2005). These pollution limits, terms and conditions include Best Available Control 

Technology emission limitations for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and 

volatile organic compounds for the Main Flare at the MCU Facility. Additionally, EPA is 

amending the permit to remove certain equipment, and the applicable permit requirements that 

apply because this equipment has been shut down and removed from the site. Other than the 

potential replacement of the fan on the Main Flare to provide better pollution control, this permit 

action does not authorize any new construction or modification of existing equipment at the 

MCU Facility.

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, EPA is seeking public comment on the October 15, 

2014, proposed permit action’s potential to directly (e.g. physically) and indirectly (e.g. visually) 

affect historic properties, and information on potential adverse effects to historic properties 

and/or traditional cultural properties (e.g. archeological sites). Historic properties include places, 

structures, objects, etc. that are listed on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of 

Historic Places. Historic properties include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and 

located within such properties. For more information about the permit action, 

visit http://www2.epa.gov/caa-permitting/prevention-significant-deterioration-psd-permits-triballands-issued-region-9, or contact Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 or R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

More information about the NHPA process can be found 

at http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf. Please submit any comments to Shaheerah 

Kelly, Air Division (AIR-3), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901 or by electronic mail to R9airpermits@epa.gov by 

November 3, 2015.
#### Joseph Elmer WHITWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-327.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 1972.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Steven E. Rohan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*83PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Ward v. State, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 187.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
263 La. 104

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leo LAZART v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52853.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: Leo Lazart applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari and/or prohibition.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
#### CRANBROOK CLUB LIMITED, Appellant, v. HARRY HURST AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-2030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1978.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner & Jaco-bowitz, Joe N. Unger and Mark King Le-ban, Miami, for appellant.

Onett-Colodny and Glenn T. Harris, North Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff Cranbrook Club, Ltd. appeals from a final judgment entered upon the involuntary dismissal at trial of the plaintiff’s cause of action against its insurance agent, the defendant Harry Hurst and Associates, Inc. The plaintiff had sought the return of an insurance premium which it had paid to the defendant on the basis that the defendant had allegedly failed to forward as directed the said premium to the plaintiff’s insurer Calvert Fire Insurance Co. The evidence is uncontradieted that the defendant did in fact forward the premium as required to Calvert’s designated agent and that an insurance policy was in fact issued to the plaintiff. Nine or ten months later, Calvert cancelled the policy claiming nonpayment of premium. We conclude that the defendant under these circumstances breached no duty which it owed to the plaintiff as an insurance agent under the rule stated in *Jones v. Central National Bank & Trust Co.,*110 Fla. 262, 148 So. 765 (1933). The plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, lies against Calvert Fire Insurance Co. for unjustifiably cancelling the insurance policy herein.

Affirmed.

PEARSON, Judge

(dissenting).

This is an appeal from a final judgment pursuant to an involuntary dismissal of plaintiff’s cause at the conclusion of plaintiff's case in a trial before the court without jury. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(b). It is my *1219view that the majority has failed to apply the rule set forth in *Jones v. Central National Bank & Trust Co.,*110 Fla. 262, 148 So. 765 (1933), where the court, citing to Mechem on Agency, said:

> 

> “ ‘It is the duty of every agent, when no other arrangement is made, to bring to the performance of his undertaking, and to exercise in such performance, that degree of skill, care and diligence which the nature of the undertaking and the time, place and circumstances of the performance ordinarily and reasonably demand. A failure to do this, whereby the principal naturally and proximately suffers loss or injury, constitutes negligence for which the agent is responsible.’ ”

The facts presented by the plaintiff present an issue of the liability of the defendant insurance agent for the agent’s failure to follow through upon its undertaking on behalf of the plaintiff. I would, therefore, reverse for a trial of the issue.