alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter M. KEEHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 21, 1969.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1969.

*27Chester L. Skipper of Ramseur, Bradham, Lyle, Skipper & Cramer, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Chief Judge.

Appellant was informed against on the charge of assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape from county jail. He was arraigned on both charges and entered a plea of guilty to each charge. On September 24,1964, appellant was sentenced on each of the charges to a term of six months to five years to run concurrently. Subsequently, appellant in proper person filed a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. This motion was denied without a hearing.

In the motion appellant alleged that he and two codefendants were awaiting transfer to Florida State Prison to commence serving sentences for which they had been convicted and which were unrelated to each other. After the attempt to escape the appellant and the two codefendants were jointly represented by the public defender’s office. Said public defender was appointed immediately prior to the time of arraignment and was only allowed approximately ten minutes to talk with the appellant and his codefendants.

In his appeal appellant urges that it was error for him to be tried with one or more codefendants having the same counsel, and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to vacate and set aside sentence without an adversary hearing. The question regarding the trial of one defendant with one or more codefendants jointly represented by a public defender has been answered contrary to appellant’s position. Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97; State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98. See Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563 and Dunbar v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 52.

The other contention raised by appellant regarding the time lapse between appointment of counsel and the trial is without merit since the time allowed before trial was adequate to cover the simple charges to be tried. Assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape are not complicated charges. In view of the simplicity of the charges and the facts of record the time allowed was sufficient. See State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241.

Appellant having failed to show error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PIERCE and MANN, JJ„ concur.
# C_2015383EN.01010001.xml

| 17.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/100

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a multiannual recovery plan for Bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean repealing Regulation (EC) No 302/2009’

(COM(2015) 180 final — 2015/0096 COD)

(2015/C 383/15)

On 30 April 2015 the European Parliament and on 7 May 2015 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2) of the TFEU, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a multiannual recovery plan for Bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean repealing Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a multiannual recovery plan for Bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean repealing Regulation (EC) No 302/2009

(COM(2015) 180 final — 2015/0096 COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 509th plenary session of 1 and 2 July 2015 (meeting of 1 July), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 1 July 2015.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Blanche D. Hunter, Deceased. Chase Manhattan Bank, Respondent; Pamela T. Creighton, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 622]

In a proceeding to settle the first intermediate account of the petitioner as cotrustee of a testamentary trust, the appellant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated July 19, 2000, as, upon granting her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior motion, denied her motion to withdraw a “waiver of citation and consent in accounting” to vacate a decree of the same court dated February 23, 1998, judicially settling the account, and to file objections to the account based on the alleged mismanagement of the assets of the trust.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This appeal arises from the execution of a waiver of citation and consent in accounting (hereinafter the waiver), by the appellant, a beneficiary of a trust created under the will of her deceased grandmother, in connection with the intermediate accounting of the petitioner trustee.

The appellant claims, inter alia, that the Surrogate’s Court erred in denying her motion to withdraw the waiver on the grounds of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, upon, in effect, granting reargument, *556the Surrogate’s Court properly denied the motion, and directed that a fact-finding hearing be held to determine whether the events surrounding the appellant’s review and signing of the waiver were fair, open, and free of any misrepresentation or other misconduct *(see, Matter of Paul,*105 AD2d 928, 930). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of State Bank Financial Corporation (the “Company”), each certify that, to his knowledge:

 

1.               The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/   Joseph W. Evans     |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Joseph   W. Evans         |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |
|   | May 16,   2011       |
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/   John S. Poelker     |
|   | John   S. Poelker         |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer |
|   | May 16,   2011       |

 

----
#### Graham, Jr. *v.*E. F. Houghton & Co., Appellant.

Argued October 3, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, CtnmmGham, Baldeige, Stabtpeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Wayland H. Elsbree*of *White, Sclmader, Maris & Clapp,*for appellant.

*156*Ralph B. Umsted,*and with him *Benjamin R. Simons,*for appellee.

October 31, 1934:

Per Curiam,

The action below was trespass to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff in a right angle collision, at the intersection of Oxford and Twenty-fifth Streets, Philadelphia, between the automobile plaintiff was driving east on Oxford and one owned by defendant and then being driven north on Twenty-fifth by one of its servants.

The case was tried, under the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, before Stern, P. J., who entered the following findings of fact and conclusion of law: *“1.*The defendant was negligent and thereby caused the accident. 2. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. 3'. The plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of $350,” and “1. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $350 from the defendant.”

Defendant’s exceptions were dismissed and this appeal followed. No questions of law are involved. As in most cases of this type, the testimony was not free from conflict. Our examination of the record discloses ample competent evidence supporting the findings of the trial judge and the assignments must, therefore, be overruled.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Michael A. BELL v. Honorable Leon J. LeSUEUR, Judge, Ascension District Court.

No. 54179.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: Michael A. Bell applying- for Writs of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

Application denied; the matter is moot, a hearing having been fixed by the trial judge.
#### Francis George EYERS, Appellant, v. Jean C. EYERS, Appellee.

No. 73-1003.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Charles BREAZEALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1014.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
United States Department of Transportation Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: 333 MODIFICATION REQUEST - Add UAS Systems / Airframes to Existing Exemption Pursuant 

To Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir Or Madam:

REDLine Aerospace LLC requests that five modern, off the shelf UAS systems are added to our approved 

list of operating UAS / aerial systems. 

Our approved 333 is EXEMPTION NO. 11825 REGULATORY DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0373 

The four rotary systems are similar in size and performance to our previously approved list of systems, 

and the 3DR fixed wing aircraft is a proven OTS system as well. 

1. SAFETY OF FLIGHT - MODERNIZATION OF UAS SYSTEMS - Redline hereby requests the 

following systems to be added to our roster of UAS systems approved for commercial flight: 

1.1. Rotary UAS (Quad / Hexi / Octo) 

1.1.1. DJI - MATRICE 100 (LINK TO DJI MANUAL) 

1.1.2. FreeFly Systems - ALTA (LINK TO ALTA SPECS) 

1.1.3. 3DR - X8-M Copter (LINK TO X8-M MANUFACTURER PAGE) 

1.1.4. Shotover - U1 sUAS (LINK TO MANUFACTURER PAGE) 

1.2. Fixed Wing UAS (Electric) 

1.2.1. 3DR - Aero-M Fixed Wing (LINK TO MANUFACTURER PAGE) 

Our flight safety program may modify aircraft to include parachute recovery systems or systems designed 

to improve flight safety as listed in our original 333 request. We will also add transponders as systems 

become available for small UAS such as these. 

Questions or comments may be addressed to Christopher R. Vasquez, Redline Aerospace LLC 

Christopher R Vasquez 

CEO, Chief Pilot - Redline Aerospace LLC 

www.RedlineAerospace.com

chris@RLAero.com (831) 224-2778 

1 of 1
258 La. 969

#### STATE of Louisiana v. John Edward POLK.

No. 51503.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1971.

In re: John Edward Polk applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writs denied: Considering the application and the showing made at the evidentiary hearing in the trial court, the application is denied, since the defendant had effective assistance of counsel at the time he pleaded guilty.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Sweeper, Appellant.

[723 NYS2d 142]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered February 25, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The elements of force and of assistance by another person actually present were clearly established by the evidence, including credible testimony that defendant suggested to the victim that he was carrying a gun, and that defendant’s accomplice displayed a gun before fleeing, in order to prevent pursuit by the victim. Defendant’s acquittal of robbery in the first degree does not warrant a different conclusion *(see, People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557).

The court was under no obligation to grant defendant’s request to charge grand larceny in the fourth degree since that crime is not a lesser included offense of any degree of robbery *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                State or Other
                                                                                Jurisdiction of
                                                                                Incorporation
         Name of Subsidiary                                                     or Organization
         ------------------                                                     ---------------

<S>                                                                             <C>
         The Elco Corporation                                                   Ohio          (1)

         ELDISC Export Co. (100% owned by The Elco Corporation)                 Delaware      (1)

         Harvel Plastics, Inc. (85% owned by The Elco Corporation)              Pennsylvania  (1)

         S.O. Realty, Inc. (formerly Seibert-Oxidermo, Inc.)                    Michigan      (1)
</TABLE>



(1)      Financial statements of subsidiary companies are included in the
         Consolidated financial statements.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of  Europa Acquisition III, INC., for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, Peter Reichard, CEO and CFOof Europa Acquisition III, INC. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
  1. Such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2. The information contained in such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Europa Acquisition III, INC.
   Europa Acquisition III, INC.Date:  November 4, 2010
By:
/s/ Peter ReichardPeter ReichardPresident and Director
#### Bernice LOSEY, Appellant, v. Dean LOSEY, Ruth Bowers, Howard Losey, Jr., and Howard Losey, Appellees.

No. 67-267.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1968.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Edward A. Perse, Miami, for appellant.

Starr W. Horton, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Bernice Losey, from a final decree rendered in a suit brought by the issue of her husband’s first marriage to quiet title to several parcels of real estate. Howard Losey and his first wife, Esther Losey, owned certain real property, conveyance having been to them as husband and wife without further clarification. Through various deeds and related partnership agreements, the Loseys conveyed a one-fourth interest in all of the property to each of their three children. When Esther Losey died, Howard Losey served as personal representative of the probate estate, which consisted entirely of Esther’s interest in the property. Esther Losey willed her estate to the children. Subsequently, Howard Losey remarried and granted to his second wife, appellant herein, an interest as tenants by the entirety in the one-fourth of the real estate not deeded to the children. The children then brought suit to quiet title. The lower court rejected defendant’s argument that Howard and Esther Losey had been tenants by the entirety, and that upon the death of the wife the entire interest in the property vested in the survivor, enabling him to then transfer that interest to her.

We agree with the chancellor and affirm. For the purposes of this appeal, it is unnecessary to decide whether Howard *284and Esther Losey originally acquired the property as a tenancy by the entirety.1 We are of the opinion that even if such a tenancy by the entirety did exist, that tenancy was terminated and a tenancy in common with the children created by the deeds and partnership agreements.2 This being so, Esther Losey’s interest in the property passed to the children through her estate, not to her surviving spouse by operation of law. And since Howard Losey could convey to the appellant no better title than he had, it is clear that the appellees were entitled to the decree rendered below.

Affirmed.

1

. There is substantial authority to the effect that a conveyance to husband and wife, without more, creates in them a tenancy by the entirety, absent an expressed intention to the contrary. See: 161 A.L.R. 457.

2

. It is settled that a tenancy by the entirety may be terminated by the joint action of both parties. See: In re Lyons Estate, Fla.1955, 90 So.2d 39, 64 A.L.R.2d 1; Dodson v. National Title Ins. Co., 1947, 159 Fla. 371, 31 So.2d 402; Crawford v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 500. The conclusion that a tenancy in common with the children was created is further supported by the actions of the parties toward the property subsequent to the execution of the deeds and partnership agreements, as for example in the division of rents and profits.
ISSUED: November 16, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOBt_pARTMENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRAHSPORTA1\0N 

WASHINGTON, DC 3: 0q 

10\\ NO~ \1 A 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OOCKET OPERA1\0NS 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

Respondent 

TO: Thomas Sanders 

66-437 Kamehameha Hwy 

Unit 369 

Haleiwa, HI 96712 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

SUBPOENA 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(3), YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and 

testify at a hearing scheduled to begin at the following place, date, and time: 

1. Location: 

2. Date: 

3. Time: 

United States District Court, District of Hawaii 

300 Ala Moana Blvd. 

Honolulu, HI 96850 

December 13, 2016 

9:00 a.m. local time 

This subpoena is issued because the Respondent, Pacific International Skydiving Center, 

filed an application on November 12, 2016 requesting your presence to testify at this hearing. If 

you have any questions about the subpoena, you should contact the Respondent's counsel at the 

address and telephone number listed below. 

The provisions of 14 C.F .R. § 13 .228(b) allow you to file a motion to quash or modify this 

subpoena with the undersigned judge. The applicant shall describe, in detail, the basis for the 

application to quash or modify the subpoena including, but not limited to, a statement that the 

testimony is not relevant to the proceeding or that the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive. 

A motion to quash or modify the subpoena will stay the effect of the subpoena pending a 

decision by the undersigned judge on the motion. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.229, you are entitled to the same fees and mileage expenses as are 

r 
paid to witnesses appearing in the courts of the United States. These fees shall be paid by the 

Respondent, the party at whose request you have been subpoenaed. 

If you fail or refuse to comply with this subpoena, a party may, in accordance with 14 C.F .R 

§ 13 .228( c), apply to the local federal district court to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoeQ.a. 

Subpoena issued at the request of: 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 107th Avenue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Subpoena, page 2
# C_2013301EN.01001501.xml

| 17.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/15

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2013/C 301/05

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/267/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) German (DE) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/267/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) German (DE)

| | EPSO/AD/268/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Latvian (LV) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/268/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Latvian (LV)

| | EPSO/AD/269/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Dutch (NL) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/269/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Dutch (NL)

| | EPSO/AD/270/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Portugese (PT) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/270/13 — Lawyer linguists (AD 7) Portugese (PT)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 301 A of 17 October 2013.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0324 

_____________________________

BRANDI LUCAS BUSE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

March 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2023).

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Rebecca HANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-253 to 72-257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 26, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3387

To suspend temporarily the duty on Neurolite (complete dosage kits).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1993

Mr. MEEHAN (for himself and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Neurolite (complete

dosage kits).

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

3 SECTION 1. NEUROLITE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 Neurolite (complete dosage

kits) (provided

for in subheading

3006.30.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/94 ’’.
2

•HR 3387 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Donnie Deline BUCKHANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2070.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 28, 1969.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.