alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF CAPE CORAL, Florida, et al., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, upon the relation of Thomas J. ALLISON and Eleanor J. Allison, Husband and Wife, et al., Appellees.

No. 41997.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 31, 1973.

Clyde G. Killer, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Hugh E. Starnes, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appel-lees.

*485PER CURIAM:

Affirmed.

CARLTON, C. J., ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and LEE, Circuit Judge, concur.

ERVIN and BOYD, JJ.,

dissent in part and concur in part. (See opinion by ERVIN, J., in State ex rel. Lee et al. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida and City of Cape Coral, Florida v. State ex rel. Jeffcott et al. Fla., 272 So.2d 481, filed January 31, 1973.)
#### Charles R. NICKLAS, Jr., and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Wilbur A. KETCHAM, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Luella A. Ketcham, Deceased, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
259 La. 881

#### John EBARB and Mrs. Catherine P. Ebarb v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51743.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: John Ebarb and Mrs. Catherine P. Ebarb applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Sabine. 251 So.2d 100.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          36,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,601
<INVENTORY>                                      6,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,405
<PP&E>                                         347,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 493,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,714
<BONDS>                                        439,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                    (75,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   493,369
<SALES>                                         43,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,683
<CGS>                                           52,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (17,606)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,485)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)
        

</TABLE>
II

★(Star Print)

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1147

To prohibit Presidential nominees from performing certain governmental

functions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. COATS, Mr.

COHEN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH,

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. LOTT,

Mr. NICKLES, Mr. MACK, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS,

Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP, Mr. HATFIELD, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit Presidential nominees from performing certain

governmental functions, 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. PROHIBITION OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES

4 PERFORMING CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL

5 FUNCTIONS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subject to the provisions of

7 subsection (c), no person nominated by the President to

8 serve in an office which requires the advice and consent
2

•S 1147 IS1S

1 of the Senate for appointment may perform any function

2 described under paragraph (2) before such appointment

3 is approved by the Senate.

4 (2) The functions referred to under paragraph (1)

5 shall include any function which is authorized or required

6 by law to be performed by an officer of the United States,

7 regardless of whether such function may be delegated by

8 law.

9 (b) NOMINEES COMPENSATED FOR SERVICES.—The

10 provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such person,

11 regardless of whether such person is compensated for tem12 porary or intermittent services under section 3109 of title

13 5, United States Code, or any other provision of law.

14 (c) APPLICATION.—(1) The provisions of this Act

15 shall not apply to any officer of the United States with

16 respect to the functions of the office held by such officer

17 at the time of nomination by the President for appoint18 ment to another office.

19 (2) The provisions of this Act shall not affect the ap20 plication of subchapter III of chapter 33 of title 5, United

21 States Code.

22 (3) The provisions of this Act shall not be construed

23 to affect the power of the President to fill a vacancy dur24 ing the recess of the Senate.

Æ
#### SAM KAYE, INC., Appellant, v. Jay H. WHITE et al., Appellees.

No. 71-721.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
<CURRENCY>    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          49,859
<SECURITIES>                                    32,152
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,877)
<INVENTORY>                                     44,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               258,059
<PP&E>                                         149,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                (80,362)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,086
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           380
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,051
<SALES>                                        466,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               466,425
<CGS>                                          275,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  275,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,092)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,398)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)


</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-555

Lower Tribunal No. 17-18797

________________



### Marv A. Hubbard

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto

, Judge.

Marv A. Hubbard, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant filed this appeal of the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ

of Habeas Corpus. As the trial court correctly noted, the petition is actually amotion to vacate judgment, which was denied by the trial court. We treat the

petition the same and affirm the trial court’s denial.

Affirmed.

2
**Exhibit      12.1**

|                                                                   |                                                                   | **Years                  Ended December 31,**      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |                                                                   | **2006**                                           |   | **2005** |   | **2004** |   | **2003** |   | **2002** |
|                                                                   |                                                                   | (In                  thousands, except ratio data) |
| Income                  from continuing operations before income taxes | $                                                                      | 215,493                                            | $ | 181,725 | $ | 193,664 | $ | 131,477 | $ | 77,430 |
| Fixed                  charges:                                        |                                                                   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                   | Interest                  expense (including capitalized interest) (1) |                                               | 3,901 |   | 8,791 |   | 4,698 |   | 5,506 |   | 7,700 |
|                                                                   | Interest                  relating to rental expense (2)               |                                               | 6,321 |   | 6,603 |   | 7,695 |   | 6,795 |   | 5,205 |
| Total                  fixed charges                                   |                                                                   | 10,222                                             |   | 15,394 |   | 12,393 |   | 12,301 |   | 12,905 |
|                                                                   |                                                                   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings                  available for fixed charges                  | $                                                                      | 225,715                                            | $ | 197,119 | $ | 206,057 | $ | 143,778 | $ | 90,335 |
|                                                                   |                                                                   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio                  of earnings to fixed charges                    |                                                                   | 22.08                                              |   | 12.80 |   | 16.63 |   | 11.69 |   | 7.00 |
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  §1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter  ended  September 30,
2006 of the Company (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ Robert R. Galvin
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert R. Galvin
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             November 9, 2006
```
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Pak Mail Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P.
Evan Lasky, Chief Executive Officer 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) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ P. Evan Lasky
-----------------
    P. Evan Lasky
    Chief Executive Officer
    January 8, 2003
EXHIBIT 15



EXHIBIT 16


EXHIBIT 17















EXHIBIT 18









EXHIBIT 19
H. Res. 776 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 11, 2014. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

83) to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a 

team of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the 

energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and 

the Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable, reliable energy, including increasing use of indigenous clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, with the Senate 

amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 

intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 

chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee 

that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an 

amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 

113–59 modified by the amendment printed in the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 

Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 

read. The motion shall be debatable for 80 minutes, with 60 
2 

•HRES 776 EH 

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 

and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of the motion specified in the 

first section of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 

122 shall be considered as adopted. 

SEC. 3. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations 

may insert in the Congressional Record at any time during 

the remainder of the second session of the 113th Congress 

such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate 

amendment and the motion specified in the first section of 

this resolution. 

SEC. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 

a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 

Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 

with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative 

day of December 12, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,115
<SECURITIES>                                    37,787
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,642)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,514
<PP&E>                                         214,132
<DEPRECIATION>                               (127,913)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   294,870
<SALES>                                        323,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,279
<CGS>                                          221,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               192,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,384
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,526)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.23)


</TABLE>
From: <Luben.Lyn@epamail.epa.gov>

To: CJM@indecon.com; MEwen@indecon.com; JPrice@indecon.com

Date: 7/9/2009 1:39 PM Subject: Scrap Tires

Attachments: Kilns burning Tires.pdf

Jason:

We met with Michael Blumenthal of the Rubber Manufacturer's Association (RMA) today. Below is a summary of the meeting:

1) Michael Blumenthal is the pres ident of the Indu strial Resource Council (IRC) and on the Al abama scrap tire commission.

2) RMA only represents producers, not processors or users.

3) RMA is in constant contact with the Kilns concerning tire for fuel issues. LaFarge recently contacted them concerning their concerns over what EPA is doing in the proposed 112-129 rule. They say that if

whole tires are made a solid waste that it will kill the market for

whole tire use in kilns.

4) A total of 66 kilns in the U.S. burn tires. Of this total, only ten burn shredded tires, and one or two burn both whole and shredded (see attached).

5) There are five or six states wh ere most or all of their scrap tire program is devoted to facilitating w hole tires going to kilns (AL, PA, OK, TX, CA).

6) States with tire programs generally charge a fee on per tire basis for funding to manage the program. This fee is generally around $1 per

tire.

7) Kilns are paid by the state prog rams to receive tires. The current going rate ranges from five to fifteen cents per tire. Some kilns, apparently very few, take whole tires for free. No kilns pay for whole tires. However, kilns will always pay for shredded tires.

8) The Southeast is currently the st rongest market for tires for fuel.

9) The scrap tire market is moving more toward ground rubber. Currently, 100% of all truck tires are going for ground rubber,

10) Cement kilns are the second largest market for tires for fuel with pulp and paper mills being the first.

11) Kilns can derive up to 25, or in some cases 33% of their total fuel

value form tires. Above this level the zinc levels will result in reduced quality cement.

12) RMA is concerned about the ORD study on ground rubber...(See attached file: Kilns burning Tires.pdf)

Please incorporate this information into our economic assessment, and the characterization pape r, as appropriate.

Thanks,

Mr. Lyn D Luben 703-308-0508 (phone) 703-308-7903 (FAX) luben.lyn@epa.gov

EPA Mail Code - 5305P
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00385

- CV
In the Interest of D.J.C. , a Child
From the 285th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2003

- CI

- 14002 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011
DISMISSED
On June 16, 2011 , the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. We, therefore, ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court by June 27, 2011, that either (1) the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant was entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We warned that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, th is appeal would be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if clerk’s record is not filed due to appellant’s fault); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an
order of t his court). Appellant failed to respond. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R.04

- 11

- 00385

- CV

- 2

- A PP

. P. 37.3(b); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal is denied as moot.
PER CURIAM