alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

PHILLIP TAVARRIS COPELAND , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1311

[ April 6, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Howard K. Coates, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CF

- 007782

- AXXX

- MB

.
Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashl ey Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , G ERBER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Melvin JENKINS, Petitioner, v. JUDGE, POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, State of Florida, at Bartow, Fla., Respondent.

No. 72-83.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 1972.

Mandamus denied.
#### Paul S. DAVENPORT, Appellant, v. H. Leon LAYCOCK et al., Appellee.

No. 72-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
-  Freedom of Information Act      -  Submit & Check Status of FOIA Requests 
  -  FOIA Contacts & Requester Service Centers and Privacy Act Contacts 
  -  HHS FOIA Reports        -  Annual Reports 
    -  Quarterly Reports 
    -  Chief FOIA Officer Report 
    -  Open Pending FOIA Request Reports 
  -  FOIA Library / Electronic Reading Room        -  2016/2017 HHS Presidential Transition Documents 
  -  FOIA Exemptions & Exclusions 
  -  FOIA & Privacy Act Statutes & Resources        -  The Privacy Act 
    -  HHS System of Records Notices (SORNs) 
    -  HHS Computer Matching Agreements (CMAs) 
  -  FOIA FAQS 
  -  FOIA Appeals 
  -  FOIA Fees 
  -  COVID-19 Contracts 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# FOIA Logs

OS FOIA Logs 2017 [xlsx]

OS FOIA Logs 2018 [xlsx]

Content last reviewed May 24, 2024
#### In re ESTATE of Otis O. SWEET, Deceased. William D. SWEET et al., Petitioners, v. Charles H. SWEET, as Ancillary Administrator, Respondent.

No. 43905.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 253.

CARLTON, C. J„ and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Earl Nathaniel DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15858]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2018.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Jackson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15858 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 10.13
Subsidiaries of the Company
	Subsidiary
	​
	Country of Incorporation

	​
	​
	​

	Cypres Enterprises Corp.
	​
	Panama

	​
	​
	​

	Darien Compania Armadora S.A.
	​
	Panama

	​
	​
	​

	Marfort Navigation Company Limited
	​
	Cyprus

	​
	​
	​

	Darrit Shipping Company Inc.
	​
	Marshall Islands



​
#### CITY OF MIAMI, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Wallace D. CULBERTSON et al., Respondents.

No. 72-34.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1972.

Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and S. R. Sterbenz, Asst. City Atty., for petitioner.

Brigham & Brigham, John R. Farrell, Sibley Giblin, Levenson & Ward, and Faunce, Fink & Forman, Miami, for respondents.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

By petition for writ of certiorari The City of Miami presents for review an order entered in an eminent domain action sustaining objection of a condemnee to interrogatories propounded to the condemnee by the city, relating to appraisal data work product.

The city’s action in eminent domain involved four parcels of land which were separately owned, and the owners of which were represented therein by separate counsel. One of the condemnees initiated such discovery against the city. Thereafter the city sought similar discovery from another of the condemnees who had not sought discovery from the city. In precluding the same, the trial court was eminently correct.

In Pinellas County v. Carlson, Fla.1971, 242 So.2d 714, the Supreme Court held that where a condemnee has availed himself of the right to have such a discovery from the condemnor the latter then reciprocally can have such discovery from the con-demnee. Therein, the Court said: “The fair rule is that the State may not initiate discovery in condemnation cases, except as a reciprocal right in those cases when the condemnee has elected to discover the State’s work product. *Those condemnees who do not wish to explore the State’s information should not be exposed to discovery; the policy underlying the Shell decision*[Shell v. State Road Department, Fla.1962, 135 So.2d 857] *cannot logically be extended to reach such a result.”*[Italics supplied.]

The question presented here is whether, when one of several condemnees in an action for eminent domain has initiated such discovery against the condemnor, the reciprocal right of the latter for discovery applies not only to that condemnee but to other condemnees in the cause who have not so acted. The trial court held that it does not, and we agree, on authority of Pinellas County v. Carlson, supra.

Certiorari is denied, and the petition is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1481 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1481

To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third-party 
                 review processes for disputed claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

 Ms. Klobuchar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third-party 
                 review processes for disputed claims.

    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 ``Long Term Care Insurance Integrity 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCESS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
insurance issuer that offers a long term care insurance plan shall 
develop and implement claims dispute resolution procedures that comply 
with the requirements of this section that shall be applicable to such 
plan.
    (b) Requirement.--A claims dispute resolution procedure under 
subsection (a) shall--
            (1) be designed to expeditiously resolve disputes 
        concerning claims under the plan involved;
            (2) with respect to such disputes, provide for the 
        application of one or more alternative means of dispute 
        resolution involving independent third-party review under 
        appropriate circumstances by entities that are mutually 
        acceptable to the issuer and the enrollee involved, with the 
        decision of such reviewer being binding on the issuer; and
            (3) ensure that an enrollee is eligible to obtain claims 
        review only to the extent and in the manner provided for in the 
        applicable insurance contract.
    (c) Appeals.--An enrollee may appeal the decision of an independent 
reviewer under subsection (b)(2) to an appropriate State court as 
provided for under State law.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to provide authority for an independent third-party reviewer 
under subsection (b)(2) to modify the terms of any long term care 
insurance contract.
                                 <all>
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1459 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of 

horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 2 or 

more levels stacked on top of one another. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a 

motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

top of one another. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Horse Transportation 

5 Safety Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES. 

7 Section 80502 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1459 IS

1 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘This section 

2 does not’’ and inserting ‘‘Subsections (a) and (b) 

3 shall not’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub5 section (e); 

6 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(d) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.— 

9 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—No person may transport, 

10 or cause to be transported, a horse from a place in 

11 a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 

12 possession of the United States through or to a 

13 place in another State, the District of Columbia, or 

14 a territory or possession of the United States in a 

15 motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

16 top of each other. 

17 ‘‘(2) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED.—In this sub18 section, the term ‘motor vehicle’— 

19 ‘‘(A) means a vehicle driven or drawn by 

20 mechanical power and manufactured primarily 

21 for use on public highways; and 

22 ‘‘(B) does not include a vehicle operated 

23 exclusively on a rail or rails.’’; and 

24 (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1459 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘A rail carrier’’ and insert2 ing the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A rail carrier’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘subsection (a) or (b)’’; and 

6 (C) by striking ‘‘On learning’’ and insert7 ing the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES IN MULTI9 LEVEL TRAILER.— 

10 ‘‘(A) CIVIL PENALTY.—A person that 

11 knowingly violates subsection (c) is liable to the 

12 United States Government for a civil penalty of 

13 at least $100, but not more than $500, for each 

14 violation. A separate violation of subsection (c) 

15 occurs for each horse that is transported, or 

16 caused to be transported, in violation of sub17 section (c). 

18 ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.— 

19 The penalty imposed under subparagraph (A) 

20 shall be in addition to any penalty or remedy 

21 available under any other law or common law. 

22 ‘‘(3) CIVIL ACTION.—On learning’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. John P. McNAMARA, Relator, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 3, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       (257,817)               8,782,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,924,733              14,606,483
<PP&E>                                         549,432               1,548,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 151,378                 220,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,753,409              73,410,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,611,148               2,113,337
<BONDS>                                              0                       0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       60,463,943              54,473,947
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0 
<COMMON>                                       208,074                 207,975
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,893,637              15,879,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,753,409              73,410,583
<SALES>                                     20,636,578              46,037,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,788,136              46,535,329
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,808,557              36,078,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               332,287                  98,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,467,114               1,105,616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,127                 161,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,632,594)             (6,505,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0               (795,281)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,632,594)             (5,710,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0 
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0 
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,632,594)             (5,710,230)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)                  (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0 
        

</TABLE>
|Exhibit 21 Subsidiaries         
|--------------------------------
|                                
|CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL CORPORATION
|                                

|Name of Subsidiary                                                      |  | State of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                        |  |                       
|The Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company                         |  | New York              
|                                                                        |  |                       
|Home Town Funding, Inc. d/b/a CNB Mortgage Company                      |  | New York              
|                                                                        |  |                       
|Greater Funding of New York d/b/a Greater Funding, The Mortgage Company |  | New York              
|                                                                        |  |                       
|Canandaigua National Statutory Trust I                                  |  | Connecticut
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1
                                 ------------

As of December 30, 2000, the following are subsidiaries of Bush
Industries,Inc.:

        Bush Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

        Bush Industries of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

        Bush Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation

        Bush Service Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

        Fournier Furniture, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

        Bush Industries De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

        Bush Comercial De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

        The ColorWorks, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation

        Bush Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

        Bush Viotechnik GmbH, a German Corporation

        Bush Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, a German Corporation

        Rohr-Bush GmbH & Co., a German Limited Partnership
#### Larry Eugene BLEHM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

of

PSB Holdings, Inc.

under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date:  May 14, 2008



PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and CEO





SCOTT M. CATTANACH

Scott M. Cattanach

Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-14531, No. 33-54483, No. 33-64998, No. 33-65440, No. 33-68336,
No. 333-04775, No. 333-04823, No. 333-62087, No. 333-62103, No. 333-95409, No.
333-41328, and No. 333-71502) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option and Stock
Purchase Plans of Novell, Inc. of our report dated November 21, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Novell, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 2001.



San Jose, California
January 28, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Norman SMITH, Dale Deverney, Ben Wilson, Jeannine Collins.

No. 61276.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, applying for writ of review. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Matthew S. Braniff, Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 3rd day of February, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a day to be fixed by this Court at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Marie LOMBARDY, Appellant, v. R. E. W. CRANE RENTAL SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Adobe Brick & Supply Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Fred Voegeli, Appellees.

No. 2644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 5, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1969.

Norman D. Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Ronald A. FitzGerald of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees R. E. W. Crane Rental Service, Inc., and Adobe Brick & Supply Co., Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed under authority of Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 578.

WALDEN, McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BIRNER
DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,204,822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,252,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                   308,023
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,100,812
<PP&E>                                      11,412,714
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,566,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,635,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,073,095
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,968,454
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,688)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,635,295
<SALES>                                     10,886,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,886,020
<CGS>                                        3,083,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,083,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,544,678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             158,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,130
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,975
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,155
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,155
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
#### SAFEWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois corporation, Appellant, v. A. Robert THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 73-1145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.