alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bruce HENRY, Appellant, v. D. S. M. COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-1824.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

C. Michael Shalloway, Lake Worth, for appellant.

Valentine Gabaldon, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this case are landlord and tenant. They entered into a written lease which granted to the lessee/appellee an option to renew the lease for an additional three years. The lease did not specify that the option should be exercised in any particular form or by any particular time.

Both of the parties seem to take the position that the case was appropriate for summary judgment; they differ only as to which party was entitled to prevail. We have examined the record and find adequate evidentiary support therein for the trial judge’s conclusion that the renewal of the lease was validly exercised.

Appellant’s total reliance on Section 83.04 Florida Statutes (1975), is not justified in this case. Equitable considerations can vary the application of that statutory section. *Ledford*v. *Skinner,*328 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., and BURNSTEIN, Associate Judge, concur.
#### Betty Elaine DAVENPORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Jr.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 12.1

Statement of Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                         |  | Years Ended June 30, |           
|---------------------------------------- |  | -------------------- | ----------
|
|
|Interest component of rents              |  | $                    | 15,392,865
|Amortization of deferred financing costs |  |                      | 3,469,000 
|Other financing costs                    |  |                      |          
|Interest expense, net                    |  |                      | 26,272,000
|                                         |  |                      |           
|Fixed charges                            |  |                      | 45,133,865
|Earnings before income taxes             |  |                      | 30,589,000
|                                         |  |                      |           
|Earnings before fixed charges            |  | $                    | 75,722,865
|                                         |  |                      |           
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       |  |                      | 1.7x      

---



QuickLinks
251 La. 739

#### Howard C. ARNOLD v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY.

No. 49026.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 203 So.2d 764.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         191,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,227)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,295,164
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,291,640)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,295
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               670,068
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               386,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                343,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            343,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   343,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.73


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Nathan ORR.

No. 62772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: James Nathan Orr, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Rapides.

Writ denied.
# C_2022128EN.01002401.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T-202/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte - Earlier EU word mark TRILUX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil) (represented by: J. Blum, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 818/2020 4) relating to opposition proceedings between VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos and Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60409

Summary Calendar

Alimou Kaba, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A213 455 913

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alimou Kaba, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Because Kaba failed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60409 Document: 00516348963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 21-60409

2

to exhaust before the BIA his challenge to the denial of CAT relief, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider it. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 

2004). Kaba does not challenge in this court the denial of his motion to 

remand based upon a new translation of his girlfriend’s statement and has 

therefore abandoned the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 

(5th Cir. 2003).

We consider Kaba’s arguments challenging the BIA’s adverse 

credibility determination and its denials of asylum and withholding of 

removal under the substantial evidence standard. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 

17 F.4th 586, 593 (5th Cir.2021); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005). We review the decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision 

only insofar as it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 

(5th Cir. 2018). 

The BIA’s credibility determination, based upon discrepancies 

between Kaba’s testimony and his girlfriend’s statement, is supported by 

“specific and cogent reasons derived from the record,” and Kaba fails to 

show that, under the totality of the circumstances, a “reasonable adjudicator 

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 

593 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The adverse credibility 

determination sufficiently supports the denial of asylum. See id. at 595-97. 

Because Kaba is not entitled to asylum, his arguments that he was entitled to 

withholding of removal necessarily fail. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 

658-59 (5th Cir. 2012). We do not reach the BIA’s additional determination, 

which Kaba does not meaningfully challenge, that there is no pattern or 

practice of persecuting Christians in Guinea. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 

U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in 

part.

Case: 21-60409 Document: 00516348963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4968

_____________________________

OMAR Q. FELTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

May 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Omar Q. Felton, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1115 

To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 

firefighters as exempt payments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2013 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect 

to certain firefighters as exempt payments. 

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 ‘‘Fallen Firefighters As5 sistance Tax Clarification Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH 

7 RESPECT TO CERTAIN FIREFIGHTERS TREAT8 ED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986, payments made on behalf of any fireVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:57 Jun 08, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1115.IS S1115

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1115 IS

1 fighter who died or was injured as a result of the ambush 

2 of firefighters responding to an emergency on December 

3 24, 2012, in Webster, New York, to any family member 

4 of such firefighter or aforementioned injured firefighters 

5 by an organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 

6 section 509(a) of such Code shall be treated as related 

7 to the purpose or function constituting the basis for such 

8 organization’s exemption under section 501 of such Code 

9 if such payments are made in good faith using a reason10 able and objective formula which is consistently applied. 

11 (b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) shall apply only to 

12 payments made on or after December 24, 2012, and be13 fore December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1239 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1239

     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on theobromine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on theobromine.

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

SECTION 1. THEOBROMINE.

    Heading 9902.31.01 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act applies with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.31.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-33885, 333-47536, 333-47538 and 333-88387 on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 29, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Material Sciences Corporation(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption on March 1, 2007, of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in IncomeTaxes - an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109* and the restatement of the Company’s 2007 and 2006 financial statements) and the effectiveness of Material Sciences Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting (whichreport expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation for the yearended February 29, 2008. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

May 29, 2008 

 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
The schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the NuCo2
Inc. Consolidated  Financial Statements as of March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                         MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                27,355,295
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          1,825,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             443,465
<INVENTORY>                                                               85,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      29,817,008
<PP&E>                                                                43,987,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         5,494,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        77,196,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  8,749,467
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                                   7,163
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                            60,056,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          77,196,037
<SALES>                                                               13,073,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      13,073,052
<CGS>                                                                  6,231,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         13,316,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       675,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          432,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      432,278
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             432,278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                                .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                .06
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,474,399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,944,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    288,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,505,018
<PP&E>                                      22,649,715
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,834,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,368,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          758,870
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,413,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,368,271
<SALES>                                      7,933,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,134,128
<CGS>                                        7,128,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,515,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                95,618
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (381,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (381,186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (381,186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        

</TABLE>
.-s. .".i../~:

f'! ",am It)ODGE ,.t....;'~.;.::'

::' .,~:",- .•~. :<" t

; MAYOR'S OFFICE IMatt Bemrich, Mayor IDavid R.

June 25, 2014

Sent Electronically via E-Mail

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer

Chief, Essential Air Service Division

U.S. Department of Transportation <.

J

Office of the Secretary of Transportation' I

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590 I'

RE: Request Ordering Resoliciting Essentialr ir Se iel

Docket Number: OST-2001-10682; Fort Dodg

Request for Comments due before Jult ,2014

Proposals Served April 22, 2014 :9

Dear Mr. Schlemmer:

N

Ul

The Fort Dodge Regional Airport commissi9 supp rts the two year proposal from Air Choice

One for Option F2 offering direct service to mbert~~I" Louis International Airport with 18

flights per week for year one and 24 flights ~ r week1fqr year two. Fort Dodge and Mason City

worked together to strategically attempt to attract a mainline carrier to serve both our

communities; however, with the present airline environment this effort was not successful at this

time.

The Commission understands the US DOT requires that our community receives twin engine

service; however, the Commission is supporting the qroposal submitted by Air Choice One with

the single engine aircraft due to the limited choices of the proposals submitted. Additional

consideration was given due to the support provided by the Lambert-St. Louis International

Airport along with the enplanement and reliability history of Air Choice One in the communities

they currently serve. The St. Louis market provides access to over 90 Southwest Airlines daily

flights plus other mainline carriers, offering a competitive fare environment.

We understand that Air Choice One's initial proposal exceeds the $200 per passenger cap. We

expect our community to utilize the service to lower fhiS( amount below $200.

We will respectfully await the EAS Department of Transportation's decision.

Respectfully, ",

/Sa 'k!

",' /

/ 7 / ~zr.:b~~~

Matt Bemrich

Mayor City of Fort Dodge

I I II

Municipal Building. 819 1st Avenue South. Fort Dodge. IA 50501 • Phone: 515.573.7144 • Fax: 515.573.5751

Email: mayorofdodge@fondodgeiowa.org
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

RULEMAKING TITLE: Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products: Test Procedure for Dishwashers

 

Placeholder page for: 

 Docket Number EE-RM-TP-99-500 

 Comment Number 39 

 

Name and Title of Commentator: IEE Committee Draft

 

Affiliation and Address of Commentator: International Electrotechnical Commission 

 

Missing Comment Number 39 

RESERVED 

NO DOCUMENT 

 EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 39