alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irving GOLDEN, Appellant, v. James R. GOLDEN, Appellee.

No. 86-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 16, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1987.

Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Cypen, Cypen & Dribin and Myles G. Cypen, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, as the party moving for a summary judgment in the trial court, did not demonstrate conclusively that there were no disputed issues of fact or law; therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

We disagree with appellee that the facts presented in this case, between father and *261son, are the same as the facts considered by the trial court in *Golden v. Golden,*434 So.2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), *review denied,*449 So.2d 264 (Fla.1984), an earlier action between the same father and his daughter. Specifically, there was no contention in the first *Golden*case, as here, that monies deposited in an account pursuant to the Florida Gift to Minors Act had been expended for the child’s education, maintenance and rehabilitation.1

The establishment of an account in a child’s name pursuant to the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, section 710.-01-.10, Florida Statutes (1985) (formerly known as the Gift to Minors Act), creates a rebuttable presumption of donative intent. An allegation and showing that the funds were expended for the named child’s education, maintenance or rehabilitation may rebut the presumption. Appellee offered no proof tending to show conclusively that the funds had not already been expended for the child’s benefit.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

1

. The father states in a pro se "Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment” that he has spent the money in question "on the four or five different drug rehabilitation programs to which James went over that period, as well as on his two attempts to go to Miami Dade Junior College as well as on other living expenses.”
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2387 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic 

acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-3,6-bis[[4-[[2- 

(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, tetrasodium salt. 

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 2,7- 

Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-3,6- 

bis[[4-[[2-(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, tetrasodium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,7-NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID, 4-AMINO4 5-HYDROXY-3,6-BIS[[4-[[2- 

5 (SULFOOXY)ETHYL]SULFONYL]PHENYL]AZO]-, 

6 TETRASODIUM SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.91 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2387 IS

1 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-3,6- 

2 bis[[4-[[2-(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, tetra3 sodium salt) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and in4 serting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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

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

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         127,786
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,008
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    667,863
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         316,905
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           320,379
<LOANS>                                      1,626,616
<ALLOWANCE>                                     28,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,812,232
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,242,307
<SHORT-TERM>                                   256,527
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             38,633
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,568
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,144
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,654
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,812,232
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                141,754
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               57,845
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   182
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               199,781
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              84,872
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,136
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          100,645
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,780
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 304
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 87,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,461
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      39,461
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.33
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,392
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,504
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,856
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                28,253
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,834
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,610
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,780
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,780
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            751
        



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Keith J. FROSCH.

No. 87-KH-0673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Frosch, Keith J.; applying for remedial writs; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 95070; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW 87 0160.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. William B. EDWARDS v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 86-KH-2239.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Edwards, William B.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 110107.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
#### ADAMS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ex rel. Patricia Ann TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Almond Wesley TYLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83CA0030.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Jan. 9, 1986.

Ingrid H. Holmes, Asst. County Atty., Commerce City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Butler, Landrum, Pierce & Turner, P.C., Donald L. Banghart, Lakewood, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Defendant, Almond Wesley Tyler, appeals from a judgment awarding the Adams County Department of Social Services $13,393 in payment of AFDC support obligations he allegedly owed the Department. On appeal, he argues, *inter alia,*that the trial court erred in admitting, as a hearsay exception under CRE 803(6), a computer printout detailing payments made by the Department. We agree.

CRE 803(6) allows introduction of data compilations “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the ... data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. ...”

There was a total absence of these foundational requirements here. The printout was received in evidence on assurance by counsel for the Department and vague testimony by defendant’s wife. Such testimony is insufficient to meet the requirement of the Rule. *See Thirsk v. Ethicon, Inc.,*687 P.2d 1315 (Colo.App.1983). There was no other evidence proving the amount of the support obligation.

Defendant’s other allegations of error are without merit.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 121

Congratulating Representative Stephen S. F. Chen on the occasion of his

retirement from the diplomatic service of Taiwan, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2000

Referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating Representative Stephen S. F. Chen on the

occasion of his retirement from the diplomatic service

of Taiwan, and for other purposes.

Whereas Representative Stephen S. F. Chen has been a

member of Taiwan’s diplomatic service for forty-seven

years;

Whereas Representative Chen has represented Taiwan’s interests in such countries as the Philippines, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and the United States;

Whereas Representative Chen has held a number of important positions in his government at home, including those

of Vice Foreign Minister and Deputy Secretary-General

to President Lee Teng-hui;

Whereas Representative Chen’s many years of service in the

United States include appointments as Taiwan’s Consul-
2

•SCON 121 RFH

General in Atlanta from 1973 to 1979 and as Director

of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs

in Chicago from 1980 to 1982 and Los Angeles from

1988 to 1989;

Whereas Representative Chen has served with distinction as

Taiwan’s senior diplomat in the United States since

1997, when he became the Representative of the Taipei

Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas Representative Chen has been a friend of the United

States and earned the respect and genuine affection of

many Members of the Senate and House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) Representative Stephen Chen is to be con4 gratulated for his many years of distinguished serv5 ice to Taiwan and for his friendship to the United

6 States; and

7 (2) the best wishes of Congress are to be ex8 tended to Representative Chen and his family on the

9 occasion of his retirement.

Passed the Senate June 9, 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0367

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SANCHA MARIE VALENZUELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 16, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2024

09/12/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0367
June 30, 2015

Mr. Antonio Cruz

GOLFTXZ

44213 Bowers Court

Fremont, CA 94539

Dear Mr. Cruz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 25, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0754), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Robert TORRES, a/k/a Raymond Matos, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 22, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his sentence as an improper departure from the guidelines. We agree. None of the reasons for departure given by the trial judge comport with the permissible reasons as approved by the appellate courts of this state. We therefore reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Michael P. MarrowName:
    
    Michael P. MarrowTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 1, 2010/s/ Andrew B. SzafranName:
    
    Andrew B. SzafranTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    March 1, 2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                              RESOUND CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (in thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Year ended December 31,
                                                               -----------------------
                                                                1996       1995       1994
                                                                ----       ----       ----
<S>                                                          <C>        <C>       <C>
Net loss applicable to common shareholders                   ($1,192)   ($5,902)  ($14,289)
                                                             ==============================
Average number of common and common equivalent shares:
     Average common shares outstanding                        17,591     15,439     15,089
     Dilutive options (1)                                         --         --         --
                                                             ------------------------------
Total shares for primary net loss per share                   17,591     15,439     15,089
                                                             ==============================
Net loss per share (2)                                        ($0.07)    ($0.38)    ($0.95)
                                                             ==============================

</TABLE>


Notes:

(1)      Dilutive options have not been included in the calculation of primary
         earning per share since their inclusion would have had an anti-dilutive
         effect.

(2)      Fully diluted amounts do not differ. Preferred stock is not included in
         the calculation of the fully diluted earnings per share since their
         inclusion would have had an anti-dilutive effect.
#### Ernie A. PARKER v. Kenneth W. DAY, Day House Movers, Inc. and Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

No. 87-C-2803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Parker, Ernie A.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19142-CA; Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 85-503.

Prior report: La.App., 516 So.2d 1211.

Denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333- 47666) pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60983) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Option Plan, Amended and Restated 1990
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, Directors Fee Stock Option Plan and Employment
Agreement with Bruce D. Benson of United States Exploration, Inc. of our report
dated March 13, 2003, with respect to the 2002 consolidated financial statements
of United States Exploration, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB)
for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 11, 2003
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135625 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135625 COA: 271838 Jackson CC: 06-000157-FC JAMES WHETSTONE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 11, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
SAMUE L H

. SMIT H REPUBLICA N LEADE R ROO M 42 3 MAI N CAPITO L BUILDIN G

P C BO X 2O206 6 HARRISBUFt G P A I7120-206 6 PHONE ; (717 ) 787-384 5 FA X (717)787-656 4 www.samsmithpahouse.co m DISTRIC T OFFICES :
HOUS E O F REPRESENTATIVE S COMMONWEALT H O F PENNSYLVANI A

HARRISBUR G 52 7 E

. MAHONIN G STREE T PUNXSUTAWNE Y P A tS76 7 PHONE : (814 ) 938-422 5 1 25- A MAI N STREE T BROOKVILL E P A 1 582 5 PHONE : (814 ) 849-800 8
Jul y 23 , 201 0 Mr
. Denni s DeVany , Chie f Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Division , X-5 3 8"'Floo r Wes t Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S.E
. Wasliington , D C 2059 0 Dear Mr
. DeVany : I a mwritin g t o offe

r commen t

o n th e proposal submitte( i b y GulfstreamInternational Airline s fo r essential ai r

servic e fo

r th e DuBoi s Regiona l Airport (DUJ)
. I understan dthat Gulfstream' s curren t

contrac t i s se t to expir e September

30*
. Wit

h thei r resubmissio n proposal , i t i s obviou s tha

t th e relationshi p wit

h DU J an dGulfstreami s movin g i n th e righ t direction
. A s yo u ma

y alread y know , th e DuBoi s Regional Airport i s an important

element o f ou r ongoin g effort s to improv e an d gro w th e economy i n Jefferso n Count y an dsurroundin g rural areas . Up unti l now , ou r econom y ha s bee n heavil y dependen t o n manufacturin g an dw e hav e see n firsthandth e impac t o f havin g aregiona l airpor

t in clos e proximity t o Interstat e 8 0 can hel p attrac t ne w businesse s t o our

are aa s wel l a s retai n existin g ones . Additionally , w e hav e see n an influ x o f activity a s i

t relate s t o Marcellu s Shal e ga s drillin g i n our are aan dI think

acontinue dai r

presenc e wil l hel p to gro w thi s industry i n ou r

area . I understan dtha

t yo u ar e considerin g 2 proposals , on e whic h woul dprovid e 3 dail y roundtri p flight s betwee n DUJ an d Clevelan dan danothe r

proposa l whic h woul dinclud e servic e throug h Franklin , addin g afourt h tri p daily
. Certainly , I can se e th e valu e no t

onl y t o DU J bu t

t o th e Frankli n are ai n considerin g th e fou r dail y trip s fo

r man y o f th e same reason s I state dabove
. Therefore , I woul drespectfull y reques t you r consideratio n o f

thi s option
. Than k you fo r you r interes t in thi s matter .

STAT E REPRESENTATIV E 66 * Legislativ e Distric t

cc : Bo b Shaffer , DU J Airport Manage r