alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Glenn W. TURNER, Appellant, v. Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff, Appellee.

No. 72-814.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 4, 1972.

James M. Russ, Orlando, for petitioner.

Richard Mensh, Asst. State’s Atty., Clear-water, for respondent.

ORDER

McNULTY, Judge.

This matter came on for hearing at Clearwater, Florida, October 4, 1972, upon Appellant, Glenn W. Turner’s, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or in the alternative for bail pending Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant and the State of Florida, as well as the Appellant, are before the Court.

The Court finds that the Appellant has been adjudged in direct contempt of the lower Court, has requested the setting of reasonable bail incident to an Appeal from said Contempt, that said request has been denied and that a timely notice of appeal has been filed. The Court has examined *395the pleadings and exhibits and received oral argument of counsel. The Court finds that there is cause to believe that the order of the lower Court denying bail may well be in violation of the principles announced in Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956).

Therefore, it is hereby ordered That:

1) Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus pertaining to bail pending appeal is hereby granted pending the consideration and ruling of a full panel of this Court on the question of the correctness of the lower court’s ruling denying bail pending appeal under the provisions of F.A.R. 6.15, 32 F.S.A. This matter is scheduled for hearing at Lakeland, Florida, at 10:00 a. m. Thursday, October 5, 1972.

2) Bail pending this review and determination by a full panel of this Court is hereby set in the amount of $2000.

3) Honorable Donald S. Genung, Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, be, and he is hereby directed to immediately release Appellant upon posting of the bond herein provided for.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10478]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

                    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist                           ( print page 35308)                        Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.                

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: July 9, 2018.

Michael Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-15914 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Kathrine GORDON, Relator, v. The Honorable Harold R. VANN, as Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, and Joseph R. Harrison, Jr., Respondents.

No. 72-786.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Mandamus dismissed.
254 La. 125

#### Chris M. GREENING v. June Rudolph HILL et al.

No. 49891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 5, 1969.

In re: Chris M. Greening applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do, 221 So.2d 261.

Application not considered — Not timely filed. Section 11 of Article 7 of the Con*881stitution provides that this Court shall in no case exercise the power conferred by the Article unless application is made within 30 days after a rehearing has been refused by the Court of Appeal.
#### In re ESTATE of Charles L. NYE, Deceased. Ernest M. BREED, Appellant, v. Eunice K. NYE, as Executrix of the Estate of Charles L. Nye, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 71-855.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1972.

*253Macbeth & Breed, Sebring, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

The appellant was, at a late stage of the administration of this estate, succeeded as attorney for the executrix by another lawyer. Without notice and hearing, the County Judge entered an order fixing attorney’s fees and allocating the fee between the attorneys. The order gives appellant one-third of the fee and the successor attorney two-thirds. A petition for rehearing was filed. A stipulation was filed wherein the two attorneys agreed that the appellant should receive three-fourths of the fee and the successor attorney one-fourth, since the appellant had apparently done most of the work.

The County Judge, who had received some complaint from the executrix about the appellant’s handling of the estate, wrote the appellant that the petition would be granted if appellant would consent to the presence at “rehearing” (which would be, in effect, the first *hearing*appellant had been afforded) of members of the grievance committee. The appellant having declined this opportunity, this appeal ensued.

Most of this controversy was unnecessary. There was indeed some delay in handling some matters, but on the other hand, the executrix had suffered, for a time, a disabling illness. Certainly if the County Judge thinks that there is in this case a matter requiring investigation by the grievance committee he should by all means inform its chairman and cooperate with the committee. But there is no authority for the use of an order apportioning attorney’s fees as a punitive device.

Furthermore, this order should not have been entered ex parte. The record shows that a dispute existed, and notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental requirements of due process.1 There is some correspondence in the record showing that a meeting before the judge with the executrix and appellant present was proposed, but at a time which conflicted with prior commitments of the appellant in another court, a fact promptly communicated.

Appellant’s right to a “rehearing” rests upon his being denied a hearing, and the petition should have been granted.

There is, from this record, an apparent informality in the practice of probate law on the part of appellant, and the County Judge has ample power to insure that the rules are complied with. On the other hand, he is, like all of us, bound by them himself.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

1

. Fla.Const., Deck of Rights, § 9, F.S.A.; see 6 Fla.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 322, and cases there cited. See also U.S. Const. Amends. V & XIV.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1082 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1082

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the program 
 of making grants to the States for the operation of offices of rural 
                    health, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 8 (legislative day, June 7), 1993

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the program 
 of making grants to the States for the operation of offices of rural 
                    health, and for other purposes.

    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 ``State Offices of Rural Health 
Amendments of 1993''.

SEC. 2. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM FOR STATE OFFICES OF RURAL 
              HEALTH.

    (a) Matching Funds.--Section 338J(b) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 254r(b)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Requirement of Matching Funds.--
            ``(1) In general.--With respect to the costs to be incurred 
        by a State in carrying out the purpose described in subsection 
        (a), the Secretary may not make a grant under such subsection 
        unless the State agrees to provide non-Federal contributions 
        toward such costs, in cash, in an amount that is not less than 
        $1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided in the grant.
            ``(2) Determination of amount contributed.--In determining 
        the amount of non-Federal contributions in cash that a State 
        has provided pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may not 
        include any amounts provided to the State by the Federal 
        Government.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 338J(j)(1) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254r(j)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' after ``1992,''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
        $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1996''.
    (c) Termination of Program.--Section 338J(k) of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254r(k)) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' 
and inserting ``$32,500,000''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         23,724
<SECURITIES>                                   94,756
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                143,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,025
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    120,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  143,470
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,186
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,225
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
#### Shirley Coleman DEMPSEY v. Trent COLEMAN, Mrs. T. L. Coleman and Mrs. R. L. Britt.

No. 49638.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 21, 1977.

Webb Franklin, Greenwood, for appellant.

Jacobs, Griffith & Povall, Charles C. Jacobs, Jr., Cleveland, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Bolivar County; William H. Bizzell, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Carey M. HOROWITZ v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53428.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Carey M. Horowitz applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. On the basis of evidentiary hearing and trail court’s findings we find no merit in petitioner’s contentions.

DIXON, J.,

concurs. Applicant did not establish that his court appointed lawyer duped him into taking the blame to assist his co-defendant.
#### GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a California corporation, Appellant, v. Melba I. CORY, as Executrix of the Estate of Fay C. Cory, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 70-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Thomas R. Waddeil, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Perry Law, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Smart-Tek Solutions Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2008 (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
results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 19, 2008

/s/ Perry LawPerry LawChief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
#### JOHNSON v. POPP.

No. 36547.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 198 So.2d 637.
# '**1~:::'?:<'~;'** 

# ; - '"

h

- - ,__ - ' ·**'~** :'**';·yc•:·~:~r P~'~{f5''F§};/\**  

### TWELFTH CENSUS 

## OF THE.UNIT\D. STATES._

## -~~~-'.c~ ,, • ; ' 

# SCHEDULE No · 1

# ~PQPUL~QN . .{

# Su-~rvisor:.**s.~~·.JJiPtrl.-.** _._:fi.

,Wo,

# -:-~J~ '.-. ·. ;\:}-ySh

___

# ;.~~·.•~ ..

# ·~_ .

.

# ;~;:;;·;

· . • • ;- • En1mwrati-On 

### Pi;trlct:.Jro

...

### ~Jf} ..

### ~.:- ..

### ::~~**~:'.2:;'f,~{;J.K**

- . . ·:;**,·,~ :.~!·':**  - • ·. I**~·:.·:**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,035,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,740,662
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,459,708)
<INVENTORY>                                 43,881,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            95,440,996
<PP&E>                                      19,530,827
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,236,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,520,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,779,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    63,378,665
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,953,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,520,413
<SALES>                                     39,029,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,029,110
<CGS>                                       21,511,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,511,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,274,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (111,612)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,131,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (810,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,321,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,321,738
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
#### Fenwick JENKINS v. DIXIE RENTAL TOOLS AND CASING CREWS, INCORPORATED, the Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 54070.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1973.

In re: Dixie Rental Tools and Casing Crews, Inc. and The Travelers Insurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 283 So.2d 271.

Writ denied. On the facts found, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
#### Timur on 5th Avenue Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Record Explosion, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 525]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered January 17, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to allege a cause of action for use and occupancy, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate that portion of the order which granted plaintiff leave to amend the second cause of action to assert a claim for use and occupancy, and in lieu thereof to grant plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim for rent pursuant to paragraph 11 of the primary lease, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant subtenant contends that plaintiff landlord is not in contractual privity with it and, consequently has no cause of action against it, our reading of the governing lease and sublease indicates the contrary. Paragraph 11 of the *222primary lease provides in relevant part: “[i]f this lease be assigned, or if the demised premises or any part thereof be underlet or occupied by anybody other than Tenant, Owner may, after default by Tenant, collect rent from the assignee, under-tenant or occupant, and apply the net amount collected to the rent herein reserved.” Paragraph 11 of the sublease specifically provides that the provisions of the lease are part of the sublease and that all the provisions of the lease are binding upon the subtenant. Thus, since the sublease expressly incorporates the terms of the lease, which permits the landlord to collect rent directly from the subtenant after the tenant’s default, and the tenant has, in fact, defaulted, plaintiff is entitled to collect rent due directly from defendant subtenant. Inasmuch as plaintiff may, subject to any defenses defendant subtenant may have (e.g., payment or constructive eviction), recover rent from defendant subtenant pursuant to the terms of the lease and sublease, its assertion of a claim against said subtenant in quantum meruit for use and occupancy would not be appropriate (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, *Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co.,*70 NY2d 382, 388-389). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST AMERICAN CLOCK CO. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              53
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,953
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,415
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           908
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,640
<SALES>                                          5,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,500
<CGS>                                            4,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>