alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Douglas W. DITTMANN, Appellee.

No. 87-2535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 13, 1988.

Peggy Rowe-Linn of Rowe-Linn & Ger-sten, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Gary S. Israel, Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order, which read, in part as follows:

> 1. The application for temporary relief is granted. The parties shall abide by the provisions of this Order pending the entry of a Final Judgment in this proceeding.

> 2. The parental responsibility for the minor child, ERICA BARBARA DITT-MANN, shall be shared by both parties. The child’s primary physical residence shall be provided by the Plaintiff, DOUGLAS W. DITTMANN. The Defendant shall have frequent and continuing contact with the child.

> 3.Neither party may remove nor aid, encourage nor initiate the removal of the child beyond the boundaries of Florida without first obtaining the written permission of the other party or the Court as controlled by the provisions of Section 787.04 of the Florida Statutes.

The trial court was exercising its discretion in this matter. The transcript reflects the small child had been living with the alleged putative father for two years when the mother took the child from one of the licensed child care individuals with whom the child had regularly spent part of the day. The mother has threatened to remove the child from the jurisdiction. The mother had the child for a very brief period prior to the trial court’s order.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE, 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

In connection with the Annual Report of Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Daniel J. Moos, President and Chief Operating Officer of the
Company (Principal Executive Officer) and Gene S. Bertcher, Executive Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|               |  |                                                     
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|March 31, 2008 |  | /s/    DANIEL J.
MOOS                               
|               |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Operating Officer



| |  |                                                                              
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/    GENE S.
BERTCHER                                                      
| |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer
#### Lifter *v.*The Earle Company.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Equity—Interlocutory *orders*— Order *on receiver to pay rent*— Appeals.

The refusal of the court to order the receivers of a corporation to pay rent in arrear and rent as, it should accrue under the terms of a lease of premises occupied by the receivers is interlocutory *451and an appeal therefrom will be quashed without prejudice to the right of the landlord to present his claim for rent as a preferred claim upon the distribution of the fund in the hands of the receivers.

Argued April 1, 1918.

Appeal, No. 76, Jan. T., 1918, by Samuel Sternberger, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 3329, refusing order upon receivers for the payment of rent in case of Joseph J. Lifter, trading as Lifter Ice Cream Company, v. The Earle Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Mosci-izisker and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for the appointment of a receiver. Before McMichael, P. J.

Petition for order upon receivers of a corporation to pay rent of premises occupied by the receiver.

From the record it appeared that the receivers were appointed for the Earle Company on January 18, 1918; that they continued to occupy the premises 1019-21 Market street, in the City of Philadelphia, under a lease from Samuel Sternberger to the Earle Company and that the rent due January 1, 1918, and thereafter was unpaid. Petitioner prayed for an order on the receivers for the payment of rent in arrear and for the further payment of rent as it should accrue under.the terms of the lease.

The court refused the petition'. Samuel Sternberger appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*George P. Rich,*for appellant.

*Morris*Wolf, with him *Gordon A. Black*and *Horace Stern,*for appellee.

June 3, 1918 :

Per Curiam,

The decree in this case was interlocutory, and the ap*452peal from it is, therefore, quashed, at appellant’s costs, without prejudice to his right to present his claim for rent as a preferred one upon distribution of the funds in the hands of the receiver.
#### James DOE, Mary Doe and Their Son, John Doe v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR The ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.

No. 89-CC-0929.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1989.

In re Doe, James; Doe, Mary; Doe, John; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari' and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “C”, No. 87-23210; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 89CW-0322, 89CW-0262.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Advisory Committee (66).                    

*Date/Time:*                         April 7, 2010 8 a.m.-6 p.m., April 8, 2010 8 a.m.-3 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Room 1235, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science Associate, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 292-8807.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning NSF science and education activities within the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.                    

## Agenda

Update on current status of Directorate

Report of MPS Committee of Visitors

Report of NSF Advisory Subcommittees

Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within MPS Directorate

Discussion of MPS Long-term Planning Activities

*Summary Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

Dated: March 14, 2012.

Susanne E. Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-6572 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16223-16224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6635]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

[[Page 16224]]

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 13, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Minier Financial, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan with 401(k) 
Provisions, Minier, Illinois; to increase its ownership of Minier 
Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly increase its ownership of First 
Farmers State Bank, both in Minier, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 15, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6635 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
               --------------------------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-63020), Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-38765), Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-111742), Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-38759), Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No.
333-70522), Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-112107), Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-71063), and Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-44742) of Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2004
relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial
statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Jacksonville, Florida
March 12, 2004
#### DeWayne R. McLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1987.

HALL, Judge.

DeWayne McLendon appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief. We reverse for further proceedings.

McLendon alleges that his plea of guilty to a series of several felony charges was involuntary because his attorney promised him a more lenient sentence than the twenty-five years he actually received. If true, these allegations might justify withdrawal of the plea. *See, e.g., Bullard v. State,*477 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, the trial court failed to attach any evidence from the record that would refute McLen-don’s claim. After remand the court may again deny the motion, assuming the files and records in the case conclusively support a finding that McLendon is not entitled to relief, or the court may direct the state to file a response to the motion. If he desires further appellate review McLen-don must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of any further order denying the motion for postconviction relief.

Reversed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
#### Anthony WIMMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2843.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 3, 1987.

David D. McLauchlin, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SANDERLIN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his twelve-year sentence for false imprisonment with a weapon. The trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines range of four and one-half to five and one-half years. We reverse.

The trial court’s written reasons for departure were psychological trauma to the victim and insufficiency of the guidelines sentence. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the psychological trauma suffered by the victim in this case was not extraordinary or unusual in the context of the offense of false imprisonment with a weapon. *See Casteel v. State,*498 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1986); *Sarria v. State,*501 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Parsons v. State,*491 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Further, insufficiency of the guidelines sentence, as the state concedes, is not a clear and convincing reason for departure. *See Williams v. State,*492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986).

Because neither of the trial court’s reasons for departure is valid, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines. Because of our disposition, we need not address appellant’s remaining point on appeal.

*40Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

FRANK, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
#### Joan L. MORTENSEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Hugh LeFEVRE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18863.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 5, 1983.

Dexter L. Anderson, Fillmore, for defendant and appellant.

Hans Q. Chamberlain, Cedar City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, owner of a tractor of ancient vintage, appeals from a $200 judgment for trespass, $800 rental value of property where the tractor was stored, and $800 for punitive damages. Defendant claims the trial judge erred in rejecting his alleged defenses in that (a) he was privileged to retrieve his tractor; (b) no rent had been charged and no one had been inconvenienced; and (c) there was no malice, wantonness or fraud in the tractor’s placement on the property.

*135The defendant had bought the tractor, used, in the “sixties.” In 1972, he parked it in the Parowan City lot from which it disappeared in 1973. It was later found in some “sagebrush ground” on the outskirts of Parowan, inoperable and abandoned. Attempts to start and remove it failed. The site had been purchased by plaintiff in 1972 at a tax sale. The tractor sat there four years when the defendant, aware of the ownership of the land and without any notice to plaintiff, bulldozed a ramp to remove the tractor. Defendant releveled the ground, destroying considerable growth, and took the machine while plaintiff was not home.

The record reflects believable, admissible evidence justifying an affirmance of the trial court’s finding of trespass. The evidence does not support defendant’s claim of “privileged entry.” In support of his claim, defendant points to the Restatement of Torts, Second, § 198. The Restatement’s “commentaries” suggest that if the principle of privileged entry is involved, it requires reasonable notice to the landowner. Under the facts of this case, the error claimed is without merit, since no notice was given.

As to the question of storage costs on an implied contract theory,1 $800 for four years storage appears to be reasonable. This was attested to by an expert in this case.

As to the $800 exemplary damage award, we are constrained to conclude that it was unwarranted. The court itself found there was no malice, wantonness, reckless indifference or fraud. There was evidence of an unsuccessful effort to advise the plaintiff of defendant’s title to the tractor and desire to retrieve it.

The judgment is affirmed, except for the punitive damages awarded, which part is reversed. Costs on appeal to plaintiff.

HOWE, J., dissents.

1

. *See Rapp v. Salt Lake City,*Utah, 527 P.2d 651 (1974).
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Exobox Technologies Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael G. Wirtz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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: June 17, 2010








/s/ Michael G. WirtzMichael G. Wirtz,

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2130 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2130

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on N,N-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-
           (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenylpropionamide)).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Corker (for himself and Mr. Alexander) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on N,N-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-
           (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenylpropionamide)).

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

SECTION 1. N,N-HEXANE-1,6-DIYLBIS(3-(3,5-DI-TERT-BUTYL-4-HYDROXY-
              PHENYLPROPIONAMIDE)).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.23 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to N,N-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-
(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-phenylpropionamide))) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2226 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on woven fabrics containing 

85 percent or more by weight of vicuna hair. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on woven fabrics 

containing 85 percent or more by weight of vicuna hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WOVEN FABRICS CONTAINING 85 PERCENT OR 

4 MORE BY WEIGHT OF VICUNA HAIR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.23 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 woven fabrics containing 85 percent or more by weight 

8 of vicuna hair) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2226 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2389 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6- 

methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetic acid, 

cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]-1Hisoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, CYANO[3-[(6-METHOXY-2- 

4 BENZOTHIAZOLYL)AMINO]-1H-ISOINDOL-1-YL 

5 IDENE]-, PENTYL ESTER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.94 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]- 

9 1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester) is amended by strik10 ing ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2389 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS