alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Schuneman GROSCHE, Appellant, v. L. Judson LLOYD, Judge of the Municipal Court in and for the City of Deerfield Beach, and the City of Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation, Appellees.

No. 2577.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 5, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Otis Farrington, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15540]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 25, 2018.

PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Determination on FIVE original jurisdiction 
cases.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant 
to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, 
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7001.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
J. Patricia Wilson Smoot,
Chairperson, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-15540 Filed 7-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16007]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10480]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Corot: Women'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Corot: Women,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of 
Columbia, from on or about September 9, 2018, until on or about 
December 31, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e192848295888e8fd3d5d4d8a19295809584cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3142545245585e5f030504087142455045541f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000.

Marie Therese Porter Royce,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2018-16007 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### William E. BAKER, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VII Limited Partnership 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000758009
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          21,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,762)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         10,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,888
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,944
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.20<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 7 $ 595.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 595

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Corrective Action 39.0 $3,315.00 $0 $3,315.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Order entered October 1 6 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00007 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00008 - CR SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 01183 - J , F10 - 01184 - J



### O RDER The Court DENIES appellant’s October 6, 2014 pro se “Motion to Compel Dallas County to Produce Reasons for No Arraignments and No First Initial Appearance.” We further DENY appellant’s Oct ober 15, 2014 pro se “Petitioner’s Request to Receive Designation of Items Pursuant to the Michael Morton Act of 2012.” The appeals before the Court are from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post

- conviction DNA testing. The Court ha s received verification from counsel that appellant has been provided the record related to the trial court’s ruling on the motion. The appeal will be submitted in due course.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, t o

Michael Mowla and Michael Casillas. We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Senrick Wilkerson, TDCJ No. 1885146, Ramsey I Unit, 1100 F.M. 655, Rosharon, Texas 77583.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Mac DICKMAN, Appellant, v. JAC-LYN HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### GOLD KEY MARKETING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ANDERSON OLDSMOBILE, INC., a Maryland corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1026.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Douglas Mena VALIENT, a/k/a Douglas Mena Vaillant, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Max B. Kogen, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Fountain v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 738; State v. Jones, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 216.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6249
ROSS ALLEN BERRYMAN, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. SUPERINTENDENT RANDY LEE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:00-cv-00058-GCM) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ross Allen Berryman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ross Allen Berryman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 30, 2000. The notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 2008. *Because Berryman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### MIDWAY TESTING COMPANY, INC. v. Jerry H. WOLFF.

No. 61627.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Midway Testing Company, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Ouachita. 353 So.2d 1053.

Writ denied. On the facts found, the result is correct.

SANDERS, C. J, SUMMERS & TATE, JJ., would grant the writ.
1

BECKHAM, LISA

From: Mark.Hajduk@aps.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:47 AM

To: BECKHAM, LISA; Lyons, Ann; John_Notar@nps.gov; rbisht@navajo-nsn.gov; Rios, 

Gerardo; Bohning, Scott

Cc: Charles.Spell@aps.com; Michael.Kafka@pinnaclewest.com; Neal.Brown@aps.com;

Pamela.Norris@aps.com; David.Bloomfield@aps.com; Janice.Milford-Deal@aps.com

Subject: Addendum to Four Corners Power Plant SCR Project PSD Application

Attachments: Four Corners Power Plant SCR Retrofit Project - Addendum - 7-02-2014-signed.pdf; 

ATT00001.txt

 

Lisa, attached is the APS response to the Letter EPA sent to APS on June 18, 2014. A hardcopy will be sent out 

shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks you! 

 

 

 

Mark Hajduk

Environmental Consultant - Air Quality

400 North 5th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3902, M.S. 9303

Tel 602-250-3394 Cell 602-319-6335

mark.hajduk@aps.com aps.com
**Exhibit 99.5**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR**

We hereby consent to the inclusion in theAnnual Report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company), and to the incorporation by reference on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769) of the Company, of our report dated February 13, 2013 relating to theCompany’s 2012 and 2011 consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2012. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

**Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants**

Toronto, Ontario 

March 28, 2013
' 

\ 

• 

, 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

-- • 

1-k 

, 

88,enilora DWriet lo. . _ I • 

• 

lnllNJ'atio• Dlmld lo. dJ-t. f • • 

I • 

• 

t • 

' 

• 

• • 

• 

, 

• 

' SPECIAL SCHEDULE. 

' ..fQIYIYIIG 80Lμ!BU. 84IIP1\8, UD VABIJG, ilD WIDOWS, l'fO, 

• • 

,.._,,1ac .. na1adle ,jJPJ1 aD4 )(&rlat 0.,. of tu Ualted ·--ctumc 1M WU ,l ... ,,'elllion <• - nr,i,.a>, -a 

• 

wldon of noL ,..,., ha ___ ..-IC s--.-:---------,, Oout, of..,..---~ -

Btateof_ ..._ _______________ ..... •----' la 1..., 1880, 

• 

• • 

• ,, 

I • • 

J f 

••-., IV••••m• lo••• •• ••'!loO •,.,. MA ■ 11 ADWIDOWI. 

._., .,. .. ., Datif .t lss ~ el 

Pnnl. · 11,.,a 1nt•Ys21sl ••1kt 

• 17'1. Dien\•~ •. ,, ... 

• ' ' 

1 • • -· • f • • 

... Dus. 

,,, 

• 

-- " 

• 

\' 

I 

- - 118 - - 111 - - • 

• 

• 

18' 

• • ' 

., 

~ di _, -. 

•• - ' - -

-

--;l 'I ,.t ' I 

I • -········ 

• 

11 IJ. ~ ~ I 

" 

Poff.orii09 4DD11 1I, ~ IJICOl!UD· 

........ • • 

• 

• 

10 • • 

• 

1 ,JI?: 91-. 07, 

• I 

' . .-

, • • , 

1>1 • " l • r • -~ 

_.,,._ • 

t . 

• I • \ 

, , • • 

• 

• 

• J 

I .... • ' • •• • • .. ,, 

• l 

,, • ' , 

' '. 

• ~ ' 

• 

' • • 

t • 

10 • 

• • 

., 

• • 

11 

• 

11 • • 

(l•H I.ii IJ,} . .. ' 

• 

t 

• 

,, ' 

' T 

a 

• 

• • ti 

11 .. 

1 

• 

• 

a 

' 

• 

• • 

' 

a 

t 

10 

• 11 

11 

• 

•
No. 00-5090.

#### Clem *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Margarita Salamone et al., Respondents, v Abram Barenbaum, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 649]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ automobiles collided at an intersection, defendant’s approach controlled by a stop sign, while plaintiff was on a through street. Defendant testified that he entered the intersection only after he stopped at the corner for five or ten seconds, looked both ways with unobstructed views, and saw no approaching vehicles. Under no fair interpretation of this evidence could the jury find, as it did, that defendant was wholly free from negligence. At a minimum, defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and § 1172 (a) by proceeding into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to plaintiff, regardless of whether done deliberately, or because he did not look in the direction of plaintiff’s approach, or because he failed to see that which he should have seen with the proper use of his senses *(see, Mohamed v Frische,*223 AD2d 628; *Dellavecchia v Zorros,*231 AD2d 549; *see also, Milka v Hernandez,*187 AD2d 1031). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
The Name of every Perscn whoee usual place -86 Profession, Occupation, or Trade —
of abode on the first day of June, 1850, was i= i of each Male Person over 15

Puacr or Brera.

| | $3
i. F Whether deaf and} ¢3£)'9

| dumb, blind, insane,
Hi idiotic, pauper, or

P|

B

Naming the State, Territory,

Dwelling-houses

convict.

order of visitation.

in the order of

visitation,

alue of Real Estate

owned.

numbered in the

in this family. | years of age.

be ie

al Saotihes “wutabbenad
Attended School

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Go |
BO seca cree a renee Pp ee a eee

Donat AhBde - [Folte) (Betas Pox
5 SAW Gra At joi cy, ies \ Cornmada
Gotha Meenclons Av ny Wie ane Whe i adie ae ene fp

10 | Os odes fe a
Mla, a 4] 9A | joa [Lan NK | ( SWRA) Go|

C
Rercis cy PACS

Fd ee

|
|

17 (,

j
j oa i ee) eee oe OS eo
18 Tbe PSA . : | | . | | Uv | Lae ULlwars ~)
C/ Ms a Gare | | - | | 7 A

[dling J reel dl we el

oe a ee he mae oe og
Se tetialcter ees

“| Olbonypanch Sea 2 ss ae
ot eho: t MS ay ple : | | | C/N cl

|Phrmny Consgnnle lan ho | Iacelt ae / eK.
= ‘ | : ~ Tone eh
| G, Ns ( ree

1
(Mew

#] con Reb \ ates | | ; | | | ot wt

oad)

‘jn ] 06 ¢/  whlnactea J, o| | | as, L i | | Me tll:

| Pee iit. eee
a A (4 Mente lo + A | Bin .

94 4865 ake. ( aia As AE
| a

. > Ni a
Pa ee

3 3 & ,
ee | aaa ine CY .

| harvey & vt ; a |

ee

— a revere
* $0 Shear Shaw TAS. Fallen

AK a+.
#### MILLER *v.*STATE

[No. 310,

September Term, 1961.]

*102
      *Decided June 14, 1962.*

The cause was submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybERT, JJ.

Submitted on the brief by *Herbert B. Mullter*and *Carl Seif,*for appellant.

Submitted on the brief by *Thomas B. Binan, Attorney General, Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, James W. Murphy*and *John W. Sause, Jr., State’s Attorney*and *Assistant State’s Attorneys,*respectively, for Baltimore City, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, by a jury, of unlawfully attempting to obtain a narcotic drug by the use of a false name and address (Code [1957], Article 27, Section 295); and, under another count in the indictment, of being a second offender (Article 27, Section 300).

There is little merit in the appeal. The appellant first contends that he was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. If we assume, without deciding, that the State’s witness Noel was an accomplice, there was ample evidence to corroborate his testimony, so as to support the conviction. *Novak v. State,*214 Md. 472, 136 A. 2d 256; *Wright v. State,*219 Md. 643, 150 A. 2d 733; *Campbell v. State,*221 Md. 80, 156 A. 2d 217.

The appellant, in effect, requested the court to sever the indictment by presenting to the jury only the question of the present offense and excluding from the jury’s consideration the issue of whether he was a second offender. This question has been flatly passed upon by this Court in several recent cases. *Beard v. State,*216 Md. 302, 140 A. 2d 672; *McCoy v. State,*216 Md. 332, 140 A. 2d 689; *Toyer v. State,*220 Md. 205. *103151 A. 2d 730. For the reasons given in the opinions of these cases, we find no error here. (However, see Maryland Rule 713, effective as of January 1, 1962.)

At the conclusion of the testimony, appellant’s attorney made certain oral requests to the court for instructions to the jury. They not only did not comply with Rule 739 (1958 ed.), but it is difficult to discover, with any degree of accuracy, just what the requests anticipated. We have examined the court’s charge to the jury, and it fairly presented to the jury the issues involved.

Judgment Affirmed.
#### Robert BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-377.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 13, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and 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.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### James Russell HILLARD, Appellant, v. Roland NAVE, as Administrator of the Estate of Ethel Allman Nave, and Roland Nave, individually, Appellee.

No. 72-315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Volie A. Williams, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
merely by an affirmative mark, as / 3 .
Ve ee in the County of Lad eo, Stato,’
5

oe
, egumoyated by me onthe «S- da ffs _, 1870.
rt fh “mare” / Sab fn ad Asst Marshala

Page No 2 tous sobre 718g 17 ot to nal a rage ont pe ete 11, 12,18, 16,12, 18, ang 20 are to bo ah

aan an Z, Thais in

in| Xe A
Av Aral
Eb erso

_ hia.

NAN ANANNASNIATS |

 Dopsitien ewes

Atay eri shif

iF

he ef aaat.
ete hobble

A Qemsacies of

Ze: pra

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau,

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Lenffp jAdt\M aA 2 (aes Ea
Hee} & “Ht
_ |

Zz

sree, a et a Neetionan,
“fulton, __ ° _
+ mntemain LE»

VEZ