alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
foi iin rore eal il ta

LE)

“aw

yin es clive 3 lit
; i 15, 16, 1, 19, and 20 are to be ee

weit sl hil : il Hy il

Page No. _Inquteon rember 11.

, in the County of

fe day eins diiaes,

of hua (71 an

, enumerated by nic on the

Asst Marshal.

Post Office: uw Gok? Z | : : EA

;

‘

|
|

oombered In’

The name of every person Whore
place of abode on the first day of

DESCRIPTION.

|

if

Profession, Occupation,
or Trade of each persun,
male or female.

VALUE OF REAL ESTATE
OWNED,

|
4

| Place of Birth, naming State
or Territory of U. S.; or the

———

| Epvuca-
TION.

| Whether deaf
and dumb,

blind, insane,

CONSTITUTIONAL
RELAaTIOAS,

of Si

of visltatiun,

Country, if of foreign birth.

June, 1870, waa in this family. or idiotic.

right to vote ip
denied or abridged on
other grounds than re- |
dbelllon ur Other crime.

——_. ——

Mother of forelgn birth,

Femules (F.)

the order uf visitution,

—

| Male Citizena of UL 8, of

hes
S |

—

youre of age aud agwarda,

under | year, give months!
in travtlons, thus, 4%),
(1), Mulatto (M.), Chi-
nese (C.) Indian (1)
munth (Jan., Feb., &e.)
month (Jan., Peb,, &c,)
2) years of age and o

warla.
Mule Citizens of U,

whive

Father of foreign birth.
If married within the venr, atate

Dwellisg-honees.

Families, nombervd tn the urder
Age at last birthalay,
Sex.—Mnales (M.),

Color.— White (W.), Mack
Value of Neal Estate.

Value of Personal Estate.

If bor within the year, state
Cannot read,

--

|

a | Attended schoo! within the year,

7 Cannot write.

10

ot
o

i
co
w
a
we

=
a
p=
we
pm
w
=
ho

-- —_——

At ah

||
|

ISS
SS

j

x ins

Ce Z eiflecl,t
fie te A bah

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

Goi CtnH ae”

ped

}

y)
«

Lf, jt

|

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

ae sre

ee
Zo
In.
fr
Lo.

|
4a

l

ae:

aanyag

|

sae mer 4

Laan fa

as

:

2!
_ :
gq
Q

|

’

bate, LPM
Spabaram, Lhe
Ut leet lide oe:

LL, £: EF fee

_| WA Re le

EE. ih, pees ga

we

&
a

ee ‘BI9 F UY

= ;
=i S
ea |

ATV eS ROSE

rv

, SSS TREE )

ewes
“=

—

No. ef white females, _/ f f No. of males, foreign born, | 3
ti oad colored. males, f “ee c females, +e sc

« “« white males, 2.5 iis. S vid

No. of dwellings,

 ¢* families,

blind,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TOMMY BURNS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 3419

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

_________ _______________________/

Opinion filed May 6, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

, Jenifer M. Davis , Judge.

Tommy F. Burns, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

C OHEN , J.

Tommy Burns appeal s the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 . Burns claims that trial

counsel affirmatively misadvised him that the sentences for his two convictions would

run concurrently , h owever, the Department of Corrections i s requiring he serve the

sentences consecutively. He alleges that his plea was therefore not voluntary and that

he would not have entered it but for counsel’s misadvic e.2 The trial court ruled that Burns’s m otion was untimely filed. The S tate properly

concedes this ruling was erroneous. Additionally, the sentencing orders attached to the

trial judge’s order do not refute the allegations raised.

Burns was sentenced in the two cases on separate days

. The trial judge attached

the sentencing orders from both cases. The trial court 1 specified in the first ca se that the

sentence was to run concurrently to any and all acti ve sentences. The second case,

which is the subject of this appeal, does not designate how the sentence was to be

served

. As a result, pursuant to s ection 921.16, Florida Statutes (2012) , the sentence is

to be served consecutively. While the attachments mi ght reflect the trial judge’s intent , it

does not address the issue of counsel’s alleged misadvi c e.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to eith er attach portions of the record

refutin g Burns’ s allegations or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary he aring.

REVERSE D AND REMAND ED

.

ORFINGER and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.

1 Judge Wayne Wooten imposed the sentences.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,362,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              106,125,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                   688,332
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             125,425,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    100,392,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,538,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               125,425,211
<SALES>                                      4,500,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,500,031
<CGS>                                        1,560,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,560,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,567,961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               359,606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,183,816
<INCOME-TAX>                                   432,064
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            751,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   751,752
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert Thomas YANZITO, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Thomas WAGNER, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. N-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

*762Schwartz, Proctor, Bollinger & Cain, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from a judgment in an action for personal injuries entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellees-defendants.

At the trial, after the minor appellant had testified both in chief and on cross-examination, appellant’s counsel on redirect examination sought to read to the jury the appellant’s deposition taken eighteen months prior to the trial. Appellees’ objection was sustained, but the court received the entire deposition as a proffered evidentiary exhibit. Appellants now contend that it was reversible error for the trial judge to refuse to allow them to read the substance of the proffered deposition, since the statements therein more accurately expressed the recollections of the minor appellant.

With this contention we cannot agree. The minor appellant was examined directly and, upon cross-examination by appellees’ counsel, he adhered to the version of the accident given by him on direct examination. Any variance in his testimony given in a prior deposition was not properly the subject of redirect examination. If the minor’s memory needed to be refreshed, this should have been done by his counsel either before trial or during his initial direct examination. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to allow appellants to read the substance of the minor’s deposition.

We have examined appellants’ remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ„ concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               IKOS SYSTEMS INC.
 
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   FISCAL YEARS ENDED
                                        -----------------------------------------
                                        SEPTEMBER 27, SEPTEMBER 28, SEPTEMBER 30,
                                            1997          1996          1995
                                        ------------- ------------- -------------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Net income............................     $1,395        $2,451        $3,156
                                           ======        ======        ======
Number of shares used in computing per
 share amounts:
  Weighted average common shares
   outstanding........................      8,408         7,383         5,611
  Common equivalent shares
   attributable to stock options
   (treasury stock method)............        519           731           540
                                           ------        ------        ------
Total weighted average common shares
 outstanding..........................      8,927         8,114         6,151
                                           ======        ======        ======
Net income per share..................     $ 0.16        $ 0.30        $ 0.51
                                           ======        ======        ======
FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Net income............................     $1,395        $2,451        $3,156
                                           ======        ======        ======
Number of shares used in computing per
 share amounts:
  Weighted average common shares
   outstanding........................      8,408         7,383         5,611
  Common equivalent shares
   attributable to stock options
   (treasury stock method)............        532           771           592
                                           ------        ------        ------
    Total weighted average common
     shares outstanding...............      8,940         8,154         6,203
                                           ======        ======        ======
Net income per share..................     $ 0.16        $ 0.30        $ 0.51
                                           ======        ======        ======
</TABLE>
#### RAINBOW MUSIC COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Howard SAUVAGEOT, Appellee.

No. 69-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 22, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Zollie Leroy POLK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Walter A. BRINGE, Appellant, v. Richard W. CARR et al., Appellees.

No. 72-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Herman DEESE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-130.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1974.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, A§st. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged with murder in the second degree, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years. He seeks appellate review of the trial court’s failure to direct a verdict of acquittal.

We have examined the briefs and the entire record and find the evidence insufficient upon which to base the conviction. Getsie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 679.

Accordingly, the Judgment of Conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

      ( print page 35289)    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 25, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 19, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 42 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-193, CP2018-271.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-15843 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1

Filed 10/19/11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE BAKER, as Administrator, )

Etc., )

)

Petitioner, )

) S179194

v. )

) Ct.App. 6 H034040

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION )

APPEALS BOARD and X.S., )

) WCAB Case No.

Respondents. ) ADJ1510738/SJO 0251902

___________________________________) 

MODIFICATION OF OPINION

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter filed on August 11, 20011, and appearing at 52 Cal.4th 

434, is modified as follows:

1. On page 438, the second sentence on the page is modified to read: “They 

generally commence on the date the injured worker reaches a medically stable condition 

(permanent and stationary) because, at that point, the full nature and extent of the 

worker’s permanent disability, if any, can be determined.”

2. On page 439, in the paragraph carrying over from page 438, a new footnote 2 is 

added following the clause “i.e., the permanent and stationary date in the case of total 

permanent disability benefits, ” stating: “Our discussion of total permanent disability 

benefits pertains only to those payable for injuries occurring before April 19, 2004. For 

later injuries, it may be that an injured worker would become entitled to total permanent 

disability payments, and corresponding COLA’s, before the worker’s medical condition 
2

is permanent and stationary. (See §§ 4650, subd. (b) & 4656, subd. (c).) We express no 

view on that question, which is not presented under the facts of this case.”

3. Subsequent footnotes are renumbered to account for new footnote 2 on page 

439.

4. On page 443, in the first full paragraph on the page, immediately following the 

citation to the Department of Rehabilitation case, the following additional citation is 

added: “; but see fn. 2, ante, and § 4650, subd. (b) [when temporary disability payments 

have expired under the time limits of § 4656, subd. (c), permanent disability payments 

must begin within 14 days].”

5. On page 446, the third and fourth sentences in the first full paragraph on the 

page are replaced by the following: “Moreover, workers who sustain industrial injuries 

qualifying them for total permanent disability payments receive temporary disability 

payments which, depending on the date of injury, may themselves be indexed to the 

SAWW, thereby protecting the worker from the effects of inflation during the period of 

eligibility for temporary disability benefits. (See §§ 4453, subd. (a)(10), 4653, 4661.5.)”

This modification does not affect the judgment.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:57 PM

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_A._Lallemand@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew

Subject: FW: NHTSA and EPA Response to Verbal Interagency Comments on Rebound

Attachments: NHTSA EPA Response to OMB verbal comments on Rebound 150617.docx

Chad and Chandana, 

Attached please find our responses to your verbal comments on Preamble Section IX Rebound from earlier today. 

Thanks, 

Tim
#### Robert P. LUDWIG, Appellant, v. Marcia LUDWIG, Appellee.

No. 70-837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Page No. £7. a - ,
SCHEDULE 1—Free tababitente tn Ole bed mils» Willy _in the County of 2ZZ State

of oriait nail enumerated by me, on the Yee day of , aes 1860. _ td fae A oc Asst Marshal
Post Office Ait: ; ee

~~ ind
=

A A A TT TST

Descarprion. Vatve or Eevare Owwen.

et _ -—- ——— ——  -——

* fe
33 LF: 4) if
ake Ez ; The name of every person whose usual Profession, Occupation, or Trade of _. Place of Birth, 3 A st ts Waser Gentone
ate = os place of abode on the firat day of June, each person, male and female; over Naming the State, Territory, > S 3 at dumb, blind, inane,
£3 . | £43 1860, was in this family 15 years of age. ~ or Country. 3 : idiotic, pauper, or
ese F a | = ia te
é a = . ==
oe | | ts <5) 53
. Ye :
‘ eM a 2 LO
‘ —— the fs EON
a ws 78
8 a s
9 1)
10 | 10
1 Da uu
Smee
ee
fee: 14
/ GT. - a
e Ly
yy 16
hw
es eee,
SESE g -
ee apis "
ea "
it... #2 14) 12 O72 aA ) Kae "ee 33
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. ) vs
Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. 24
. |935
we be
OLA A he Ce
Aas Ee ES 0S ee
al ae) Oe BE eee.
29 * if 39
PPA li Soe a eee
am 2 a: 1S ee
=" Rae: ij} =
“ Cua EE ae...
2 aes a Sn SE ee
< STE IS A SS ee.
z Bo) a YY. Ser Cee
. ee ee ee ee
od 7 Ligleat \\|\|| - |”
tl Soae! | te thccal
:
38 |
aes a as OS eS
“ cee y aS eee...
: he [od Se
No. white males, No. colored males, No. foreign born,
No. white females, Be}. No. colored females, No. deaf and dumb,

los wW ee ‘ ae a
#### Leroy FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 1, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, C. David Fonvielle, Asst. Public Defender, and Craig M. Dickinson, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Fuller v. Wainwright (Fla.App.1972), 268 So.2d 431.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Rene GARCIA and Adrienne Garcia, his wife, Appellants, v. MID-FLORIDA HAULING, INC., a corporation, and Wilson Sawyer, Appellee.

No. FF-412.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 24, 1977.

John F. Roscow, III, of Scruggs, Carmichael, Long, Tomlinson, Roscow, Pridgeon, Helpling & Young, Gainesville, for appellants'.

Toby S. Monaco, of Dell, Graham, Will-cox, Barber, Ryals & Henderson, Gaines-ville, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Appellants have not produced any agreement or shown any relationship between Mid-Florida and appellee Sawyer suggesting Mid-Florida would indemnify Sawyer for damages resulting from his negligent acts. Nor have appellants properly invoked the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. A trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality, and appellants have not shown Mid-Florida exercised ownership or dominion over the tractor.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 10(E)
 Customer No.Loan No.Loan No.Loan No.
 RBC BANK (USA)
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 VIDEO DISPLAY CORPORATION LEXEL IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC. FOX INTERNATIONAL, LTD., INC. Z-AXIS,
INC. TELTRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AYDIN DISPLAYS, INC. RBC BANK (USA)
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE




---



##### 



ARTICLE 1.  Amendments to Loan Agreement
 Section 1.1 Definition Amendments
  Section 1.2 Covenant Amendment
  Section 1.3 Covenant Amendment
 Asset Coverage Ratio
 Section 1.4 Attachments
 ARTICLE 2.  Conditions to Effectiveness
 Section 2.1 Conditions
 Section 2.2 Execution of Amendment
 Section 2.3 Execution of Note
 2




---



##### 



Section 2.4 Confirmation of Guaranty
 Section 2.5 Representations and Warranties
 Section 2.6 Loan Fee
 ARTICLE 3.  Miscellaneous
 Section 3.1 Entire Agreement; No Novation or Release
 Section 3.2 Fees and Expenses
 Section 3.3 Choice of Law; Successors and Assigns
 3




---



##### 



BANK:RBC BANK (USA)By:Title:BORROWER:VIDEO DISPLAY CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title:[SEAL]LEXEL IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC.By:Name:Title:[SEAL]FOX INTERNATIONAL, LTD., INC.By:Name:Title:[SEAL]Z-AXIS, INC.By:Name:Title:[SEAL]
 4




---



##### 



TELTRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:Name:Title:[SEAL]AYDIN DISPLAYS, INC.By:Name:Title:[SEAL]
 5




---



##### 



Exhibit 5.6
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
 TO:
    
    RBC BANK (USA) (the Bank)FROM:
    
    VIDEO DISPLAY CORPORATION
 
 Please indicate compliance status by circling Yes/No under Complies column.
 Reporting Covenant
    
    Required
    
    CompliesQuarterly financial statements
    
    Quarterly within 45 days
    
    Yes
    
    NoAnnual financial statements (Audited)
    
    FYE within 150 days
    
    Yes
    
    NoYes
    
    NoBudget/Forecast
    
    30 days after FYE
    
    Yes
    
    NoGuarantor personal financial statements
    
    FYE within 150 days
    
    Yes
    
    No
 Financial Covenant
    
    Required
    
    Actual
    
    CompliesAdjusted Total Liabilities to Adjusted
Tangible Net Worth
    
    
    2.00
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    Yes
    
    NoFixed Charge Coverage Ratio
    
    
    1.35
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    Yes
    
    NoAsset Coverage Ratio*
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    Yes
    
    No
 
 *
    
    applies at each FQE on and after May 31, 2010 (Continued on Next Page)
 6




---



##### 



Compliance Certificate
 (Continued from Previous Page)
 Comments Regarding Exceptions:
See Attached.
    
    BANK USE ONLYReceived by:Authorized SignerDate:Authorized Signatory of BorrowerVerified:Authorized SignerTitleDate:DateCompliance Status
    
    Yes
    
    No
 7