alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernesto Felix BOEYKENS and Leonilda Maria Dellanoce Boeykens, his wife, Appellants, v. Bert R. SLOCUM and Louise Slocum d/b/a Quality Birds Co., Appellees.

No. 77-1646.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 1978.

*1342Stephen A. Freeman and Robert E. Ven-ney, Miami, for appellants.

Major & Haber, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, residents of Florida, filed an ex contractu action for damages against defendants, residents of Argentina, So. America. Incident thereto plaintiffs caused to be issued a writ of garnishment before judgment, against a local bank in which the non-resident defendants maintained an account. The garnishee filed an answer. Thus, in absence of jurisdiction, over the persons of the defendants, the action would be one limited to in rem recovery.

The defendants, based on lack of personal jurisdiction over them, filed a special appearance motion by which they sought to contest the validity of the writ of garnishment. The motion was denied.

Appealing therefrom, the defendants contend the court committed error by holding that they did not have standing to challenge the writ of garnishment because they were aliens not personally within the United States. The short answer to that contention is that the court did not so hold. What the court held, in the order denying the motion, was that the defendants could not be heard on the merits of such matter by a motion filed as a special appearance relying on the absence of jurisdiction over them. We hold no error was committed by the court in making that ruling. In the procedural circumstances of this case we need not and do not express opinion on the validity or invalidity of the garnishment writ.1 If, following remand, the defendants shall elect to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and thereupon challenge the validity of the garnishment order, within such time as the trial court shall fix and allow therefor, they should be entitled to do so. Otherwise the cause may proceed as an action in rem.

The order appealed from is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

1

. See: *Ray Lein Construction, Inc. v. Wainwright,*346 So.2d 1029 (Fla.1977).
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

Post-Focus Draft Revision 3 8/20/2015

ENGINEER: Hall \ DDB \ JAS 

 

 



Page 1
P150324.en3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Page 2
P150324.en3

 

 

 

Page 3
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

 

Page 4
P150324.en3

 



Page 5
P150324.en3

Page 6
P150324.en3

Page 7
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

 

 

 

Page 8
P150324.en3



Page 9
P150324.en3

Page 10
P150324.en3

Page 11
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

 

 

Page 12
P150324.en3



Page 13
P150324.en3

Page 14
P150324.en3

Page 15
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

 

 

Page 16
P150324.en3



Page 17
P150324.en3

Page 18
P150324.en3

Page 19
P150324.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 15-0324 

 

 

Page 20
P150324.en3



Page 21
P150324.en3

Page 22
P150324.en3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 23
#### OCEAN PRODUCTS, INC. and Insurance Company of North America, Petitioners, v. Wade GORDON and Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44273.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 13, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7242.

#### Johnson *v.*Iowa et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
{In Archive} ExxonMobil McElmo Creek Unit

Shaheerah Kelly to: christopherjlee, mohanrasthana, 

morrismuskett 07/18/2005 08:33 AM

Cc: Gerardo Rios

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US

To: christopherjlee@navajo.org, mohanrasthana@navajo.org, morrismuskett@navajo.org, 

Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Per our last phone call, I will be faxing you a letter sent to our office from ExxonMobil and the PSD permit 

issued to the company by the EPA Region 8 office. I will be forwarding emails to you containing 

information and other documents that I received electronically from Exxonmobil. Please contact me if you 

have any questions. Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

Air Division, Permits Office

U S EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
#### Michael HEINRITZ, Appellant, v. LAWN SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 7, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



I, David C. Burns, Chief Financial Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 16, 2005



/s/ David C. BurnsDavid C. Burns,Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR AMERICAN MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000878774
<NAME> AMERICAN MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,146,420
<SECURITIES>                                40,808,059
<RECEIVABLES>                               63,856,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,167,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       56,639,156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,528,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,167,247
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,214,882
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               657,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,812,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,114,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,114,324
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
#### William Harrison FERGUSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 26, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing. *See Brown v. State,*354 So.2d 452 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); *Mays v. State,*349 So.2d 792 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and RYDER, JJ., concur.
# C_2013124EN.01000101.xml

| 30.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.6796 — Aegean/Olympic II)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 124/01

On 23 April 2013, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6796 — Aegean/Olympic II, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---
# C_2012327EN.01S00201.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/s2

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

This publication contains the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, together with the annexes and protocols thereto, incorporating the amendments made by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 and which entered into force on 1 December 2009.

In addition, this publication contains an amendment effected by the Protocol amending the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

This publication has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions of the European Union.

---
#### Peter CLOSTER and Margot Closter, his wife, Appellants, v. POMPANO BEACH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 1299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 22, 1967.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Robert J. O’Toole, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3020 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3020

To amend the Water Quality Act of 1987 relating to the treatment works 
being constructed by the International Boundary and Water Commission in 
                         San Diego, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1993

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Water Quality Act of 1987 relating to the treatment works 
being constructed by the International Boundary and Water Commission in 
                         San Diego, California.

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

SECTION 1. DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS.

    Section 510(e) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 81) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The capacity of such 
treatment works shall be, at a minimum, 50,000,000 gallons per day. 
Construction of such treatment works shall be completed not later than 
December 31, 1995.''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL SHARE.

    Section 510(f) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 81) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The United States shall 
negotiate an agreement with the Government of Mexico for payment of any 
increase in the costs of construction of treatment works incurred as a 
result of the next to the last sentence of subsection (e).''.

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 11, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30470
G F THOMAS INVESTMENTS L P, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff - Appellant

v. CLECO CORP Defendant - Appellee

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

USDC No. 1:03-CV-2227

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and STEWART Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
AFFIRMED. See 5 th Cir. R. 47.6.
# C_2012392EN.01000801.xml

| 19.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6786 — EPH/SPP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 392/02

On 13 December 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6786. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6786. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2013379EN.01000201.xml

| 28.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7085 — CBRE/NHL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2013/C 379/03)

On 12 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7085. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7085. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
#### BIGHAM INSULATION AND SUPPLY CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The POOLE & KENT CO., a Maryland corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 21, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
November 10, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF X.F.H., Z.T.A.A. AND J.D.K., CHILDREN

NO. 14-15-00492-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed 

May 11, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-122 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, JULY 6, 2012 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Host Webinar on Understanding Foreign Trade Statistics What:
 "Understanding the Basics — An Introduction to Foreign Trade Statistics" is the first webinar in the Foreign Trade Webinar Series: The Fundamentals of Exporting that will discuss the importance of trade statistics, their impact on the U.S. Economy and how to obtain country and product statistics. During the event, Census Bureau statisticians will provide details on the valuable foreign trade resources available to the public. See complete series at: <https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/webinars_exporting.html>. The event will consist of a simultaneous audio conference and online presentation. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation. We suggest participants log in and call in early.
 When:
 Wednesday, July 11, 1 p.m. (EDT)
 Who:
 Mala Mistry, survey statistician, Data Dissemination Branch,
Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau
 RSVP:
 Sign up for webinar at:
    <https://www.mymeetings.com/emeet/rsvp/index.jsp?customHeader=mymeetings&Conference_ID=8937683&passcode=2566214>. 			
Conference number: 8937683
Passcode: 2566214 
To register for this event:
1. Go to the URL listed above and choose Web RSVP under Join Events.
2. Enter the conference number and passcode.
3. Provide your information for the event leader and then click submit.
4. Remember to complete the Pre-webinar questionnaire. If closed captioning is required: http://livewrite.nccsite.com/view/cb0711
  Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream
  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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6736

DANIEL ERIC COBBLE, a/k/a Johnathan Wayne Plemons, a/k/a Daniel 

Castleberry,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION EDGEFIELD,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:23-cv-00250-DCN)

Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Eric Cobble, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6736 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Eric Cobble, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Cobble’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. Cobble v. Warden Edgefield Fed. Corr. Inst., No. 6:23-cv-00250-

DCN (D.S.C. July 13, 2023). We deny Cobble’s motion for a certificate of appealability 

as unnecessary and deny his motion to transfer motions from a prior appeal as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6736 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Arthur I. SNYDER, Appellant, v. JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, W. H. Harwell, Jr. and Bill Robertson, Appellees.

No. 68-146.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 10, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1968.

Snyder, Young & Stern, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and Dwight Sullivan, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER ’CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Adams v. News-Journal Corporation, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 549; cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 95 A.L.R. 2d 1412 (1964).