alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eugene F. BIDWELL and Gayle Bidwell, Appellants, v. Kenneth D. KIESTER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 16, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ernest SPRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 1, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Jose A. Gonzalez, Jr., Judge.

Appeal quashed.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Robert Chestnut

### Requirements and Stakeholder Relations Chief,Data Access and Dissemination Systems Program

Rob is the branch chief for the DADS (Data Access and Dissemination Systems) Requirements and Stakeholder Relations Team (RSR).  He joined the DADS program in 2008 and oversees a team that acts as liaisons for the DADS Program stakeholders including multiple divisions within Census and external data users.  Rob also oversees all the communications, training, and outreach activities for the NEW American FactFinder.

Prior to joining the DADS team, Rob worked in the Foreign Trade Division at the Census Bureau for 9 years.

Chestnut received a Bachelor of Science in Sociology from the University of Maryland.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
EXHIBIT

| EMPLOYEE |   | CPI CORP. |   |
|----------|--------|-----------|--------|
|     |   |      |   |   |
|     |   | By:       |   |   |
|     |   |      |   |   |
|     |   | Its:      |   |   |
|     |   |      |   |   |
254 La. 128

#### Roy T. Mejia SAVOIE v. NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, State of Louisiana.

No. 49893.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Roy T. Mejia Savoie applying for writ of mandamus.

The application is denied. Considering the return of the trial judge, that a copy *882of the trial proceedings has been furnished to defendant’s attorneys for purposes of appeal, the request of relator for a transcript of the evidence has been complied with.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                2,490
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2,490
<PP&E>                                            2,172,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,172,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,056,738
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              6,934
<OTHER-SE>                                         (884,466)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,172,272
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    133,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   29,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (133,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (133,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (133,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### Willie Pearl Mullen SERIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Camille Joseph SERIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12195.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Nesib Nader, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Love, Rigby, Dehan & Love by Samuel P. Love, Jr., Shreveport, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before AYRES, HALL and WILLIAMS, JJ.

WILLIAMS, Judge.

On April 4, 1973, plaintiff-appellee, Willie Pearl Serio, filed a petition seeking a separation from bed and board from her husband, defendant-appellant, Camille Joseph Serio. Pending a hearing on the rule for alimony pendente lite, Mrs. Serio shot and seriously wounded her husband. Nevertheless, on trial of this rule, the court awarded Mrs. Serio $15 per week alimony pendente lite to begin June 2, 1973. Mr. Serio appealed this judgment.

In Lockwood v. Lockwood, 175 So.2d 313 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1965) this court held:

> “It is well settled the fixing of alimony for the support of the wife and child is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown. . . . ”

The question is, does the record reveal an abuse of the sound discretion of the trial judge in awarding Mrs. Serio $15 per week alimony pendente lite ? Our review of this record shows no such abuse by the trial judge.

Counsel for Mr. Serio has sought to fault Mrs. Serio for the injury she caused Mr. Serio and has alleged other facts, not appearing in the record, that this court should consider in setting aside the alimony pendente lite award. Such contention is without merit. The jurisprudence is well settled.

> “ * * * The right of the wife to receive alimony during the pendency of a suit for separation from bed and board is not dependent upon the merits or the outcome of the suit. It is merely the obligation of the husband to support his wife. Arnold v. Arnold, 186 La. 323, 172 So. 172. ...” [St. Martin v. Messersmith, 218 La. 239, 48 So.2d 909, 910].

*467For the reasons assigned, judgment appealed from is affirmed, defendant-appellant to pay all costs of the proceeding, including cost of this appeal. the

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.26

SECOND AMENDMENT        TO THE        COUNTRYWIDE CREDIT INDUSTRIES, INC.        STOCK OPTION FINANCING PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. (the "Company") established the Countrywide Credit Industries Stock Option Financing Plan (the "Plan") to retain and
encourage the performance of key employees and directors. Paragraph (a) of Section 5 provides for a maximum principal amount that may be borrowed by directors and employees.
Paragraph (e) of Section 7 provides for the administration of the Plan in accordance with applicable law including "Margin Regulations" as defined in the Plan. The Company desires to
amend paragraphs 5(a) and 7(e) to ensure equality of treatment for all employees.

The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors at its meeting held on May 4, 1995 recommended that this Second Amendment be brought before the stockholders. This Second
Amendment was approved by the stockholders at the Company's annual meeting on July 12, 1995.

1.     Paragraph (a)
of Section 5 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"(a)
Maximum Principal Amount. The maximum principal amount of any loan to a Recipient who is an employee of the Company at the time of such loan is 100% of the exercise price of the
options to purchase Common Stock exercised with the proceeds of such loan. The maximum principal amount of any loan to a Recipient who is a director who is not also an employee of the Company at the
time of such loan is 50% of the market price at the time the loan is made of the Common Stock purchased
with the proceeds of such loan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum principal amount may be adjusted to such greater or lesser percentage as may be permitted under applicable law at the time
the loan is made."

2.     Paragraph (e)
of Section 7 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"(e)
Compliance with Law. The Financing Plan shall be administered in accordance with applicable law, including the applicable regulations of the Federal Reserve Board relating to margin
securities (the "Margin Regulations"). The Company shall make all filings required by the Margin Regulations or otherwise in connection with the Financing Plan."

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 26th day of July, 1995

| |  | Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
| |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | By:                                

---



QuickLinks
#### A. Y. STURDIVANT, Jr., Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, a New York corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 958.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Martha K. CALDWELL, Appellant, v. Sam R. CALDWELL, Appellee.

No. 70-43.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 6, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2012010EN.01000201.xml

| 12.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/2

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2012/C 10/02

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Germany

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Germany

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Germany

Subject of commemoration: Bayern from the ‘Lander’-series

Description of the design: The commemorative ‘Bavaria’ was designed by Erich Ott and shows the most famous view of Neuschwanstein Castle. The design shows the view from the east as visitors see it during their ascent to the castle, with the gatehouse in the foreground and the medieval-style towers and turrets. The panoramic mountain situated behind the castle is well captured, as the site of the castle on a cliff overlooking the romantic Pöllatschlucht. The name ‘BAYERN’ links the depicted construction ‘Neuschwanstein Castle’ with the state. The mintmark of the respective mint (A, D, F, G or J) is located in the right central core area and the initials of the artist in the left central core area.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European Union flag. Between the stars, at the bottom, the year ‘2012’ and at the top the indication of the issuing country ‘D’.

Number of coins to be issued: 30 million

Date of issue: January 2012

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1, for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 28,424 4 LUCIO NOYOLA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 12 Stephanie Erin Brunson 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 FRY, Chief Judge. 17 Defendant appeals his conviction of forgery contending that he received 18 ineffective assistance of counsel. In our no tice, we proposed to affirm the conviction. 19 Defendant has timely responded. We have considered his arguments and not being 20 persuaded, we affirm. 212 In our notice, we set forth the standardfor a claim of ine ffective assistance of 1 counsel. We proposed to conclude that De fendant was not denied effective assistance 2 of counsel because his claims of deficient performance are viewed as trial tactics and 3 strategy, which this Court will not second guess. Lytle v. Jordan , 2001-NMSC-016, 4 ¶ 43, 130 N.M. 198, 22 P.3d 666. Defendant continues to argue that counsel’s actions 5 present a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. 6 We are unconvinced. With regard to th e failure to use a peremptory challenge 7 to exclude a potential juror, he simply ar gues that defense counsel should have used 8 it. He does not explain why. Nor does he tell us that the juror actually considered his 9 case. We conclude that hehas failed to show any prej udice from the failure to exclude 10 a particular juror. See State v. Sanchez , 120 N.M. 247, 254, 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995). 11 Therefore, this cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 12 With regard to Defendant’s other two claims , Defendant appears to 13 acknowledge that these are matters of tac tic and strategy, but nevertheless support a 14 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the result might have been different 15 if counsel had acted differently . That the result might havebeen different is not the 16 standard for establishing prejudice. Rather, there must be “a reasonable probability 17 that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors , the result of the proceeding would have 183 been different.” State v. Akers , 2005-NMCA-063, ¶ 34, 137 N.M. 561, 113 P.3d 384 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant has not shown a 2 reasonable probability that the result would ha ve been different here if counsel had 3 acted differently. 4 We conclude for the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed 5 disposition that there was no showing of ine ffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, 6 we affirm. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13

14 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 15
# C_2012300EN.01000301.xml

| 5.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 October 2012

2012/C 300/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2951 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 101,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80395 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6099 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2123 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4285 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,957 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 285,61 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0866 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5480 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3386 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2673 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2783 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0432 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5788 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5910 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 441,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0599 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2090 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4820 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 418,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9599 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,779 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,2900 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,617 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6179 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5643 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,0020 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2951

JPY

Japanese yen

101,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80395

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6099

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2123

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4285

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,957

HUF

Hungarian forint

285,61

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0866

RON

Romanian leu

4,5480

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3386

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2673

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2783

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0432

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5788

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5910

KRW

South Korean won

1 441,73

ZAR

South African rand

11,0599

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2090

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4820

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 418,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9599

PHP

Philippine peso

53,779

RUB

Russian rouble

40,2900

THB

Thai baht

39,617

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6179

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5643

INR

Indian rupee

67,0020

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31243 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEARLIE HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CR-10006-ALL)

July 6, 1998

Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pe arlie Hamilton appeals the sentence imposed following her

guilty-plea conviction for theft of government property. She

contends that the district court erred in calculating the amount of

loss attributable to her criminal conduct when determining the

applicable sentencing range.

A district court’s determination of relevant conduct and the

amount of los s is reviewed for clear error. U nited States v.

Peterson
, 101 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir. 1996), cert

. denied

, 1172

S.Ct. 1346 (1997). Relevant conduct must be criminal, but need

only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. S ee Id

. at 385.

After a careful review of the record and the controlling

authorities, we conclude that the district court’s determinat ion

that a loss of $44,142 was attributable to Hamilton’s criminal

conduct is not clearly erroneous. S ee United States v. Powell

, 124

F.3d 655, 663, 665-66 (5th Cir. 1997), cert

. denied

, 118 S.Ct. 1082

(1998).

AFFIRMED.
%:^^ ^ ^e(-^v^5 

.'•'•^NSPORWION 

' -^^^i•• OPERATIONS 

Brainerd Lakes Area >, , • -> 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT '^ ' ' H h 08 

Corporation 

H/eVe ready. Let's grow! 

Date: November 18,2011 

To: . Dennis Devany, U.S. DOT 

*' Tr: Sheila Haverkamp, Executive Director 

Brainerd Lakes Area Economic Development Corporation 

Re: Scheduled air service for the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport 

The Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport is essential to the economic vitality of our area. We are a 

growing area with several national and international companies located in our community tiiat 

rely on air service. An example is Clov^^ Stamping Company, who shared these comments about 

^ .ai r service: •• • 

"Clow Stamping is visited by out of state customers 15-10 times per year. For those customers without 

additional business in the Twin Cities Area their choice is usually Mesaba to Brainerd and back. I would 

hate to have my customers without that option. We need to make it easy for them to come and visit us. 

Consistent and quality air service is vital to our local economy." Reggie Clow 

• '. We also are blessed to' have lifestyle amenities such d's medicftl, education, natural environment, 

recreation, and technology iflfrastructure. We attract retirees, and individuals and families that 

'^*"'-" "fan live and work where they choose. Air service facilities are of significant importance in their 

decision to be part of our community. 

• • . 

We appreciate Great Lakes Airlines application to provide air service to the Braitierd Lakes 

Area. Our request is that the quality and comfort of the current planes serving Brainerd is 

maintained. Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

P ^"t -

Sheila Haverkamp 

Executive Director 

BLAEDC 

124 N. 6th St. Brainerd, MN 56401 I www.growbrainerdlakes.org | phone: 218.828.0096 | 888.322.5232 

Serving Crow Wing County and all of it's communities.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2982
RICHARD DIRK SELLAND, LTJG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. PERRY, The Honorable Secretary of Defense; JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants - Appellees. FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1145-Y) Submitted: October 18, 1996 Decided: November 7, 1996 Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BULLOCK, Chief United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonia B. Ianniello, Benjamin Reid Barnett, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Appellate Staff, Civil1 Section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654. 2 Department of Defense Directive 1332.20 (March 4, 1994). 3 The temporary injunction issued by the district court, which prohibited Selland's discharge pending appeal, is dissolved forthwith. 2 Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Lcdr. Edward S. White, Office of the Judge Advocate General, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Melissa Wells-Petry, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Lieutenant Richard Dirk Selland appeals an order of the district court upholding his involuntary discharge from the United States Navy on account of his acknowledged homosexuality. He argues that the statute1 and policy2 under which he was discharged are unconstitutional. We have recently held that they are not. Thomasson v. Perry , 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , 65 U.S.L.W. 3033 (U.S. Oct. 21, 1996). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issue has recently been decided authoritatively. 33 AFFIRMED