alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 19, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2044

Lower Tribunal No. 19-10774

________________

Patricia Del Valle,

Appellant,

vs.

SafePoint Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie 

Moore, Judge.

Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Christopher Herrera and Jose P. Font (Fort 

Lauderdale), for appellant.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. 

Lindroth (Tampa), for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 
2

Affirmed. See Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 

2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999) (stating that a claim not raised in the trial court will 

not be considered on appeal); Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) 

(“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must 

be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to 

be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be 

considered preserved.”); Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981) 

(holding that issues not presented to the trial judge will not be considered in 

an appeal from final judgment on the merits). See also Fla. R. App. P. 

9.200(e) (“The burden to ensure that the record is prepared and transmitted 

in accordance with these rules shall be on the petitioner or appellant.”); 

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) 

(“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not 

properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial 

court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. 

Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court 

reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to 

require reversal.”); Ponn v. Metro Express, Inc., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1786, 

2023 WL 5731753, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 6, 2023) (“The choice to provide 

piecemeal transcripts deprived this Court of the ability to review the record 
3

as a whole. Absent a full transcript, this Court cannot determine whether the 

evidence presented by [appellant] at trial supported her argument that the 

proposed jury instruction should have been included or whether it was 

prejudicial for the trial court to fail to include that instruction.”)
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 636 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow certain hospitals 

in Puerto Rico to qualify for incentives for adoption and meaningful 

use of certified EHR Technology under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

certain hospitals in Puerto Rico to qualify for incentives 

for adoption and meaningful use of certified EHR Technology under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Hospital 

5 HITECH Amendments Act of 2013’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 636 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF MEDICARE HITECH PAYMENTS TO 

2 HOSPITALS IN PUERTO RICO. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (n)(6)(B) of section 

4 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘subsection (d) hospital’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘hospital that is a subsection (d) hospital or a sub7 section (d) Puerto Rico hospital’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

9 (1) Subsection (b)(3)(B)(ix) of section 1886 of 

10 the Social Security Act is amended— 

11 (A) in subclause (I), by striking 

12 ‘‘(n)(6)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(n)(6)(B)’’; and 

13 (B) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘a sub14 section (d) hospital’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible 

15 hospital’’. 

16 (2) Paragraphs (2) and (4)(A) of section 

17 1853(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

18 1395w–23(m)) are each amended by striking 

19 ‘‘1886(n)(6)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘1886(n)(6)(B)’’. 

20 (c) IMPLEMENTATION.—Notwithstanding any other 

21 provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human 

22 Services may implement the amendments made by this 

23 section by program instruction or otherwise. 

24 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

25 this section shall apply as if included in the enactment 

26 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 636 IS

1 (Public Law 111–3), except that, in order to take into ac2 count delays in the implementation of this section, in ap3 plying subsections (b)(3)(B)(ix), (n)(2)(E)(ii), and 

4 (n)(2)(G)(i) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act as 

5 amended by this section, any reference in such subsections 

6 to a particular year shall be treated with respect to a sub7 section (d) Puerto Rico hospital as a reference to the year 

8 that is 2 years after such particular year. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.11 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1647

___________

LEONARD THOMPSON,

Appellant

v.

MARY MICHELS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-00962)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 23, 2014

Before: JORDAN, COWEN and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(filed: July 24, 2014)

___________

OPINION

___________
2

PER CURIAM

Leonard Thompson appeals an order of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania that dismissed his action with prejudice for lack of 

federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I.

Thompson brought this lawsuit against Michels, seeking damages for a failed 

business deal with Michels’ deceased spouse. Liberally read, Thompson’s pro se 

complaint alleged fraud, theft, and breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust 

enrichment. 

Thompson asserted federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a federal criminal 

statute pertaining to mail fraud. Michels filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other 

things, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court agreed and granted 

Michels’ motion to dismiss. Thompson appealed. 

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the 

District Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price, 

501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007). 

 

1

 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
3

Here, we agree with the District Court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Thompson invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1341, but that is a criminal statute that does not give rise 

to a private right of action. See Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 407-08 

(8th Cir.1999) (collecting cases). In other words, the statute authorizes public actors (the 

government) to criminally prosecute individuals for mail fraud, but it does not provide a 

basis upon which an alleged victim of mail fraud may bring a civil lawsuit in federal 

court.

Thompson did not plead any other ground upon which federal jurisdiction could 

alternatively rest, and we can perceive none. The causes of action in Thompson’s 

complaint arise under state law and therefore do not give rise to jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. Nor could there be diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Among 

other things, that jurisdictional basis requires the parties to be citizens of different states. 

See Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). It is 

uncontested that both Thompson and Michels are citizens of Pennsylvania. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.38 MB)

Tags:fort belvoir, McNamara Headquarters Complex, DLA Headquarters, Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Lion Dance, Wong People, People and Culture

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 711 

To designate the Federal building located at 118 South Mill Street, Fergus 

Falls, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 118 South 

Mill Street, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Edward 

J. Devitt United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EDWARD J. DEVITT UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

6 118 South Mill Street, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, shall be 

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Edward J. Devitt United 

8 States Courthouse’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 711 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

4 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Edward J. 

5 Devitt United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Camp *v.*Camp, Appellant.

Submitted April 23, 1941.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*181October 2, 1941:

*B. A. Seiotto*and *Morgan W. Evans,*for appellant.

*E. A. Englehart*and *Clarence E. Davis,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Kenworthey, J.,

This is an action in divorce brought by the husband on the grounds of indignities and cruel and barbarous treatment. The ease was referred to a Master, who recommended the divorce on the ground of indignities. The Court adopted the recommendation, granted the divorce and the wife has appealed.

After carefully reviewing the evidence, we are satisfied that the decree should be affirmed.

The parties were married in March 1918 and were reasonably congenial until 1932. In that year libellant took his family to Johnstown, Pa., in order to take over his brother’s coal business. From that time respondent maliciously meddled in his business affairs; constantly complained and nagged him about his social friends; in the presence of others, falsely accused him of immoral relations with other women, included among whom was a colored servant in their home; quarrelled with him in public, on one occasion becoming so violent that she kicked her foot through the windshield of their automobile and, on another, striking him with a lamp, causing a cut in his shoulder, which required four stitches; showed an inexcusably mean disposition toward some old friends of his whom he attempted to befriend by taking them into his home at a time when the head of the family was out of a job; complained in the presence of others about his attitude toward his home and his children; falsely accused him of scheming to leave her and the children; ridiculed his interest in such public welfare enterprises as the Community Fund; ridiculed his interest in the church; complained *182about the way be spent his money; falsely accused him of giving to his brother more than the brother’s share of the proceeds of the business; and in ways, too numerous to enumerate, showed a vindictive disposition toward him, which was the cause of extreme embarrassment. Libellant denied any provocation.

Much of libellant’s testimony was corroborated, and, in fact, many of the accusations were admitted by respondent, who, in .some instances, offered an explanation which was not very convincing and, in others, none.

Respondent’s conduct produced the deplorable results one would expect. Their friends were alienated; they had no social life. Their health was undermined. They were extremely unhappy whenever they were together and the place where they lived, instead of being a normal home, was little more than an arena for the conduct of incessant quarrelling and bickering, usually with their two children as spectators. The evidence clearly indicates that the fault was primarily and principally respondent’s.

The decree is affirmed, the costs to be paid by appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                                               0<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0<F3>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F4>
<INVENTORY>                                          0<F5>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,591
<PP&E>                                         143,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F6>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,015
<BONDS>                                              0<F7>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F8>
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F9>
<COMMON>                                             0<F10>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0<F11>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0<F12>
<SALES>                                        307,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0<F13>
<CGS>                                          243,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F14>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (581)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F15>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,079
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
<FN>
<F1>Cash is zero, gross profit is $64,188.
<F2>Securities are zero, selling, general and administrative expenses are $32,697.
<F3>Receivables are zero, FAS 121 Impairment Charge is zero.
<F4>Allowances are zero, operating income is $31,491.
<F5>Inventory is zero, weighted average number of shares outstanding - basic is
13,438.
<F6>Depreciation is zero, weighted average number of shares outstanding - diluted is
13,652.
<F7>Bonds are zero, backlog is $78,262.
<F8>Preferred Mandatory is zero, capital expenditures are $29,844.
<F9>Preferred is zero, depreciation and amortization is $10,638.
<F10>Common is zero, EBITDA is $42,129.
<F11>Other SE is zero, gross margin is 20.95%.
<F12>Total liability and equity is zero, working capital is $38,576.
<F13>Total revenues is zero, short-term debt is $6,553.
<F14>Total costs are zero, long-term debt is $71,254.
<F15>Loss provision is zero, stockholder's equity is $132,476.
</FN>


</TABLE>
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-172/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose - Directive 1999/31/EC - Waste management - Landfill of waste - Inert waste from building and public works)

(2005/C 45/22)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-172/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C.-F Durand and M. Konstantinidis) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 April 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Kluÿka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

----
AFS-12-450-E

October 31, 2012

 Exemption No. 10155A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0715

Mr. Jim D. Bilbrey

Adventure Flights, Inc.

19301 Jasmine Court

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

Dear Mr. Bilbrey:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10155. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 26, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Adventure Flights, Inc. (Adventure Flights), for an extension of Exemption 

No. 10155. That exemption from § 141.5(d) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) allows Adventure Flights to be issued a pilot school certificate with associated rating for 

free balloons.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Adventure Flights.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10155

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10155 to October 31, 2014,

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service