alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. W. O. MATTOX, Jr., Relator, v. A. Lloyd LAYTON, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Duval County, Florida, Respondent.

No. J-242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 15, 1967.

Walter G. Arnold, Jacksonville, for relator.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition filed by Relator herein is denied on the authority of the opinion filed this date in the companion case of State of Florida ex rel. Lowe v. Nelson, 202 So.2d 232.

WIGGINTQN, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

JOHNSON, Judge

(dissenting).

I dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority and would grant the Writ of Prohibition for the reasons and upon the authorities cited in the dissenting opinion filed by me in the companion case of State of Florida ex rel. Lowe v. Nelson, 202 So.2d 232.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      12,783,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,495,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   325,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,711,000
<PP&E>                                       5,716,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 382,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,668,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,347,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,000
<PREFERRED>                                      6,000
<COMMON>                                        48,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,630,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,668,000
<SALES>                                     11,160,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,950,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,238,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,293,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                267,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            213,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,511,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.52)
        

</TABLE>
259 La. 891

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tebbe ARBO et al.

No. 51817.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Tebbe Arbo, Julia Nolan, Linda McClelland, Trudy Peralta, Rebecca Anthony, Sunday Taylor and Pat Terrell applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Application denied. There is no showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1292 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 135
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1292

 To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2013

 Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lee, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
Blunt, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Heller, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
Toomey, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Fischer, 
  Mr. Moran, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Scott, Mr. 
Roberts, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                July 16 (legislative day, July 15), 2013

             Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund Obamacare Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or 
title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments 
made by either such Act.
    (b) Limitation.--No entitlement to benefits under any provision of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or 
title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made 
by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made 
to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.
    (c) Unobligated Balances.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law 
referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.
                                                       Calendar No. 135

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1292

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 16 (legislative day, July 15), 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                
<ARTICLE> 5                           
                                      
<S>                             <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1998  
<CASH>                                           12,381,743
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   160,481,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,312,298
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  262,837,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                         228,560,186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              5,567
<OTHER-SE>                                       25,858,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    262,837,004
<SALES>                                          12,916,847
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12,916,847
<CGS>                                             5,415,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5,415,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4,851,696
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2,150,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,108,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                        404,581
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 703,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        703,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.13
                                      

</TABLE>
#### Jack GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1970.

Edgar Miller, of Miller & Russell, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no harmful error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCAIN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 1, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60267 Summary Calendar

CHRISTIAN UCHENNA OKPOKO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A29 971 289)

-------------------- Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Christian Uchenna Okpoko has filed a petition for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the denial of Okpoko’s motion to reopen his deportation
proceeding. Okpoko was ordered deported, i n absentia , after he

failed to appear for his deportation hearing. We review for abuse

of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. S ee Lara v.
Trominski , 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).2

Ok poko does not take issue with the BIA’s factual

determination that the immigration co urt sent notice of his
deportation hearing, via certified mail, to his addresses of
record. Instead, he argues that the BIA’s failure to consider 8
C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(4)(ii)(A)(2) was an abuse of its discretion. He

contends t hat, under this regulation, an i n absentia order of
deportation may be rescinded if the alien did not receive notice of
the deportation hearing.

We “accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the
immigration statute unless there are compelling indicatio ns that

its interpretation is incorrect.” F addoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188
(5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In In re: Grijalva , 21 I & N
Dec. 27, 1995 WL 314388 (BIA 1995), the BIA determined that proof

of a ctual service or receipt of the notice is not required to

effect serv ice of a deportation proceeding under the immigration

statute.

O kpoko has failed to demonstrate that the BIA’s statuto r y interpretation in Grijalva is not entitled to deference. As Okpoko

thus has failed to show that the BIA abused it s discretion in
denying his motion to reopen, his petition for review must be

denied.

PETITION DENIED.
#### Powell, et al., Exrs., *v.*Forcey, Admrx., Appellant.

*Contracts*— Performance—Failure *of consideration.*

Upon the trial of an issue to determine whether there was a failure of consideration for a judgment note given by a son to his father, both deceased, it appeared that the note was given to secure the purchase money for property to be conveyed by the father to the son; that no conveyance was made in the lifetime of the father, but that he devised the property by will to the son, who remained in possession thereof until his death two years later; and that' during that time he did not question the judgment which had been entered against him by the executors of his father’s estate. *Held,*the lower court was correct in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs in the issue, the executors of the father’s estate.

Argued April 23, 1913.

Appeal, No. 132, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 365, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of H. B. Powell and H. L. Forcey, Executors of Thomas H. Forcey, v. Georgiana Forcey, Administratrix of E. B. Forcey, deceased.

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Issue to determine validity of a judgment note. Before Smith, P. J.

A rule to open judgment and let the defendant into a defense was made absolute and at the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $11,063.38, by direction of the court. Judgment was entered on the verdict.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Defendant appealed. -

• *Error assigned*was in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant.

*A. L. Cole,*with him *A. H. Woodward*and *John C. Arnold,*for appellant.

*153
      *W. C. Miller,*for appellees.

May 19, 1913:

Per Curiam,

The issue in this case was awarded to determine whether there was a failure of consideration for the judgment note given by E. B. Forcey, deceased, to his father, Thomas H. Forcey, also deceased. It was given to secure the payment of purchase money for a property to be conveyed by the father to the son. The former died without making the conveyance, but devised the property to the son, who was in the possession and enjoyment of it from the time of the agreement to convey it to him until his own death. Though he survived his father for three years, he never questioned the judgment which had been entered against him by the appellees. He manifestly regarded the devise by his father as a carrying out of the agreement that he should have title to the property for which he paid by his judgment note, now assailed by his administratrix. Under the undisputed facts in the case, the plaintiffs were entitled to the verdict directed in their favor, and the judgment upon it is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND
ACCUMULATED DEFICIT ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,380
<SECURITIES>                                    13,487
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,166
<PP&E>                                         210,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,076
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,805
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,709
<SALES>                                             16
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   568
<CGS>                                              602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,805)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,805)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
#### George GRAYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 13, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert P. Davidow, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

*576PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Sam William ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-807.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 28, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant below from a robbery conviction the contention is presented that the state failed to prove' the elements of the crime. Having considered the briefs and examined the record we reject appellant’s contention of insufficiency of evidence, and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.
From: Messinger, Lisa C.

To: Thomas Finseth

Subject: A. B. Brown scrubber waters

Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:23:00 AM

Hi TJ – We spoke a couple days ago about the SIGECO / Vectren A. B. Brown scrubber sumps and

tried to correlate information provided on the ICR water balance and comments I made to the ELG

rulemaking. The plant has taken a further look at the water balance and has noted that evaporative

loss in the scrubber is NOT accounted for...it is noted on the WB as such. They are working on an

updated WB with a more detailed description about the source of the waters that enter the

scrubber area (fresh water or ash pond recirculated water), and the discharges from sumps, belt

filter, etc. They anticipate having a revised water balance available next week which I will then

forward for your review. Hopefully this will aid in better describing and understanding the

wastewater flows from the unique scrubbers at A. B. Brown.

ThanksLisa C. Messinger

Lisa C. Messinger

Manager, Utility Environmental Compliance

Vectren Corporation

812-491-4666

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the

individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is nonpublic, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under

applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution,

or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this

communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this

message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic

communication. Thank you.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Pedraza, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 427]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered December 15, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal the judgment of conviction in exchange for a lesser sentence which was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed under another indictment *(see, People v Holman,*89 NY2d 876; *People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909; *People v*Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; *People v Pedraza,*237 AD2d 385 [decided herewith]). Accordingly, we do not address the defendant’s contentions on appeal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Bradley E. Barks, Chief Financial Officer of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. certify that: 1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;  2.
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;  3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;  4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 16, 2005
    /s/ Bradley E. BarksBradley E. BarksChief Financial Officer 1
#### Elizabeth M. CAMPBELL, etc., Appellant, v. INDIAN CREEK COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Thii'd District.

April 3, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.