alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Russell R. BEVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS, Respondent.

No. S-157.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 12, 1973.

Rehearing. Denied July 23, 1973.

Joseph C. Jacobs, and Charles A. Francis, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Russell R. Bevis, as owner and operator of Bevis Funeral Home, has petitioned this Court to grant a writ of certiorari and to quash an order of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers in which it was ordered that the establishment operating license issued to petitioner herein be suspended but, in recognition of the request of the complainant that Mr. Bevis’ license not be revoked or suspended, the licensee in question was placed on probation *340for one year; and to quash the amended order of the Board which postponed the effective date of withdrawing the appearance of Bevis Funeral Home as an approved apprentice training agency, the later order being dated October 6, 1972.

We take up the primary order of the Board in placing the petitioner herein upon probation for one year. Respondent contends that administrative findings of fact are conclusive upon the court and will not be reviewed by them beyond the determination of whether they have proper support in the evidence. We agree with this statement of law and find that the evidence in this case not only does not support the determination of the Board as to Mr. Bevis, but on the contrary, refutes the determination of the Board as to any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Bevis.

Section 470.12(2) (n) and (o), provides for the charges made against Bevis and the evidence clearly shows that the complaints complained of were against an employee of Mr. Bevis, a Mr. Middlebrook, who himself was a licensed funeral director and embalmer. We cannot agree with the Board’s interpretation of the evidence. This determination would be contrary to the case law as we find it to be, and therefore as far as the order placing the petitioner upon probation for one year, we do not find sufficient evidence to sustain the same.

Inasmuch as the amended order of October 6, 1972, withdrawing the Board’s approval of Bevis Funeral Home as an approved apprentice training agency, was based upon substantially the same set of facts upon which the probation order was premised, this order must also be quashed.

The writ of certiorari will therefore be issued quashing the order and the amended order as described in the petition for cer-tiorari.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000911115
<NAME> ATCHISON CASTING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                       591
<INVENTORY>                                     68,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,063
<PP&E>                                         197,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,778
<SALES>                                        475,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               475,559
<CGS>                                          407,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  452,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,969)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   282
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,901
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,806
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26


</TABLE>
#### Charles W. MACKLER and Roseann Mackler, Appellants, v. HALLETT PONTIAC, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               YEARS ENDED
                                                                                 JUNE 30,
                                                                           2000             1999
<S>                                                                   <C>               <C>
   Net loss   (a)                                                     $   (20,942)      $    (8,847)

   Accrued dividends on preferred stock                                      (738)           (1,176)
                                                                    --------------  ----------------

   Net loss available to holders of common stock (b)                      (21,680)          (10,023)
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
                                                                    --------------  ----------------

Basic and diluted net loss per share (b/c)                            $     (0.93)      $     (1.01)
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
                                                                    --------------  ----------------

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic
 and diluted (c)                                                       23,317,847         9,955,261
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
                                                                    --------------  ----------------

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share (a/d)                  $     (0.73)      $     (0.41)
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
                                                                    --------------  ----------------

Pro forma basic and diluted weighted average
 shares outstanding (d)                                                28,854,370        21,745,539
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
                                                                    --------------  ----------------
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3346 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3346

    To give effect to the norms of international law forbidding the 
   abduction of persons from foreign places in order to try them for 
                           criminal offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 22, 1993

 Mr. Gonzalez submitted the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To give effect to the norms of international law forbidding the 
   abduction of persons from foreign places in order to try them for 
                           criminal offenses.

    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 ``International Kidnapping and 
Extradition Treaty Enforcement Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROSECUTION OF UNLAWFULLY ABDUCTED PERSONS.

    (a) In General.--A person who is forcibly abducted from a foreign 
place which has in effect an extradition treaty with the United 
States--
            (1) by the agents of a governmental authority in the United 
        States for the purposes of a criminal prosecution; and
            (2) in violation of the norms of international law; shall 
        not be subject to prosecution by any governmental authority in 
        the United States.
    (b) Foreign Governmental Consent.--An abduction is not, for the 
purposes of this section, a violation of the norms of international law 
if the government of the foreign place consents to that abduction, but 
such consent may not be implied by the absence of a prohibition on such 
abductions in a treaty regarding extradition.

                                 <all>
```
250 La. 99

#### Marie LaHITTE, wife of/and Leonard J. LaHitte v. ACME REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, INC., and American Employers’ Insurance Co.

No. 48521.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 3, 1967.

In re: Marie LaHitte, wife of/and Leonard J. LaHitte applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 192 So.2d 172.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Richard HATHOCOCK et al. v. Marvin W. EDMONDS et ux.

No. 47411.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 4, 1974.

Liston & Upshaw, James Y. Dale, Greenwood, Ringold & Ringold, Winona, for appellants.

Jack B. Carlisle, Ackerman, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Choctaw County; Robert Prisock, Chancellor.

Affirmed.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ-
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3543

For the relief of Wolfgang Dietrich Hofmann.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 18, 1993

Mr. GONZALEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Wolfgang Dietrich Hofmann.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION OR

4 EXCLUSION OF WOLFGANG DIETRICH

5 HOFMANN.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections

7 212(a)(2)(A) and 241(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act, Wolfgang Dietrich Hofmann may not be

9 deported from the United States or excluded from admis10 sion into the United States by reason of his conviction of

11 any crime that occurred prior to January 1, 1980, and

12 that is reflected in the records of the Immigration and
2

HR 3543 IH

1 Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice or the

2 Visa Office of the Department of State on the date of the

3 enactment of this Act.

4 (b) RESCISSION OF OUTSTANDING DEPORTATION

5 ORDER.—The Attorney General shall rescind any out6 standing order of deportation or finding of deportability

7 that has been entered against Wolfgang Dietrich Hofmann

8 by reason of his conviction of any crime that occurred

9 prior to January 1, 1980.

10 (c) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Wolfgang Dietrich

11 Hofmann enters the United States before the filing dead12 line specified in subsection (e), he shall be considered to

13 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise

14 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section

15 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date

16 of the enactment of this Act.

17 (d) ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHAR18 ACTER.—Notwithstanding section 101(f) of the Immigra19 tion and Nationality Act, any crime with respect to which

20 a judgment of conviction was entered against Wolfgang

21 Dietrich Hofmann prior to January 1, 1980, may not be

22 considered in determining whether he is, or during any

23 period has been, a person of good moral character for pur24 poses of such Act.
3

HR 3543 IH

1 (e) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

2 FEES.—Subsection (c) shall apply only if Wolfgang

3 Dietrich Hofmann applies for adjustment of status and

4 pays the appropriate fees within two years after the date

5 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
| (1) | 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 9, 2017       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                         |   |
| Kevin Landis            |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |
|                         |   |
| Omar Billawala          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
#### Melvyn KESSLER, Appellant, v. The FIRST STATE BANK OF MIAMI, f/k/a the Little River Bank and Trust Company, Appellee.

No. 70-1079.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1971.

*797Joel Robrish, Miami, for appellant.

Feibelman, Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., CHARLES CARROLL, J., and ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the defendant in an action by a bank claiming as a subsequent holder for value upon a check given by appellant. The trial court entered a summary final judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file. Upon appeal, appellant claims a genuine issue of material fact as to a possible notice to the bank of a conditional delivery of the check. The affidavits in support of appellee’s motion deny any notice of infirmity and appellant’s affidavit sets forth no fact which would raise an inference of such notice. Summary judgment was properly entered. See Sorrells Bros. Packing Co. v. Union State Bank, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 74.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50457 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BERNARDO MCGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas (EP-96-CA-203)

______________________________________________

December 20, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that (#56903-080) Bernardo McGuire’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because his appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. S ee Howard

v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court1 McGuire’s motion for certificate of appealability is

DISMISSED as unnecessary, and his “motion for judgment” is DENIED.
2 did not err by holding that McGuire cannot attack a final judgment

o f property forfeiture via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate

sentence. 1 Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00656-CV

In re Ciro Rivera

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM CALDWELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Ciro Rivera’s Motion for Temporary Relief and his Petition for Writ of

Mandamus are denied.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: November 27, 2007
#### C. Welborn DANIEL, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40168.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 237 So.2d 222.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur. DREW, J., dissents.
(January 25, 2002)

#### In the Matter of Martin P. Winsor, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[737 NYS2d 308]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, an Otsego County attorney, was suspended for a period of six months by this Court in September 2000 *(Matter of Winsor,*275 AD2d 858). He now applies for reinstatement.

We conclude that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of the suspension order and with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see,*22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court’s rules governing reinstatement *(see,*22 NYCRR 806.12) and that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law.

However, we condition respondent’s reinstatement upon his submission to petitioner, until further order of this Court, of semiannual reports by his treating psychiatrist assessing his continuing capacity to practice law.

Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, upon the condition set forth herein, effective immediately.

*877Mercare, J. P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted, and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, upon the condition set forth in this decision, effective immediately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME OF MONACO COACH
CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 1, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                       209
<INVENTORY>                                    104,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,197
<PP&E>                                         112,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,625
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           189
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,120
<SALES>                                        464,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               464,074
<CGS>                                          394,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  424,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,066
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10441

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO CATALAN-NAVA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-305-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Catalan-Nava appeals his 24-month sentence of imprisonment. 

Given that Catalan-Nava has been released from prison and is not serving a 

term of supervised release, his appeal is moot. See United States v. Clark, 193 

F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10441 Document: 00512681376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2014
#### WEBB’S CITY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. KNIGHT & WALL COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Page 1 of 2 NO. DF-10-13224-U NO. DF-13-18933-U NO. DF-13-18931-U NO. DF-14-10757-U IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § BOWENS/WELCH § 302 nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT § CHILDREN § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF APPEAL This Notice of Appeal is filed by CRYSTAL BOWENS, Respondent, party to these proceedings who seeks to alter the trial court's judgment or other appealable order. 1. The trial court, cause numbers, and styles of this case are as shown in the caption above. 2. The judgment or order appealed from was signed on August 14, 2015. 3. CRYSTAL BOWENS desires to appeal from all portions of the judgment. 4. This appeal is being taken to the Court of Appeals for the 5 th District of Texas. 5. This is an accelerated appeal. This is a parental termination case. 6. Appellant is presumed indigent and may proceed without advance payment of

costs. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie L. Pond, Attorney at Law 701 Commerce #200 Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel: (214) 752-0229 Fax: (214) 752-5217 FILED DALLAS COUNTY 8/31/2015 1:48:58 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Bridgette VationPage 2 of 2 By: /s/ Stephanie L. Pond STEPHANIE L. POND State Bar No. 24079817 Email: stephaniepond@yahoo.com Attorney for CRYSTAL BOWENS

Certificate of Service I certify that a true copy of this Notice of Appeal was served in accordance with rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on each party or that party's lead counsel as follows: Party: Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services Lead attorney: Sandre Moncriffe, Assistant District Attorney Method of service: via email: Sandre.Moncriffe@dallascounty.org Date of service: August 31, 2015

Party: Guardian ad Litem/Attorney ad Litem for child Lead attorney: Glyne Worrell Method of service: via email: gworrell@theworrelllawfirm.com Date of service: August 31, 2015

Party: Father Justin Welch Lead attorney: Charles Vaughn Method of service: via email: Charles.Vaughn@dallascounty.org Date of service: August 31, 2015

/s/ Stephanie L. Pond STEPHANIE L. POND Attorney for Respondent