alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles T. PROTOMASTER, III, Appellant, v. Deborah PROTOMASTER, Appellee.

No. 86-2151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1987.

*97John Thor White, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

David C. Davidson, of Fisher & Sauls, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The husband, Charles T. Protomaster, III, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm.

In addition to dissolving the parties’ marriage, the trial court made an equitable distribution of their property and ordered the husband to pay $150 per week permanent periodic alimony. The husband does not contest the division of the marital assets and obligations. He does, however, contend that the trial court erred by awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony rather than ordering him to pay, as rehabilitative alimony, the $584 total monthly payments on the first and second mortgages on the home awarded to the wife. We disagree.

A trial court's exercise of its discretionary power in fashioning a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action is subject only to the test of reasonableness, i.e., if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable, and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In reviewing a trial court’s disposition of property and award of alimony, our responsibility is to determine from the admitted facts, or the facts taken most favorably to the prevailing party, whether the rules of law were applied correctly and whether the trial court’s discretionary authority was reasonably exercised under the test set forth in *Canakaris. Walter v. Walter,*464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985). We not only find that the rules of law were properly applied in this case but that the trial court’s award of permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony meets the *Canakaris*reasonableness test.

The trial court, furthermore, did not err in requiring the husband to make the alimony payments to the wife rather than allowing the husband to make mortgage payments directly to the holders of the mortgages. Authority to choose the method of payment of alimony was granted to the court, not the parties, by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1985). *Caidin v. Caidin,*367 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), *cert. denied,*381 So.2d 765 (Fla.1980).

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 154 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 154

    To acknowledge and salute the contributions of coin collectors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 23 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

  Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
   McConnell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gorton, and Mrs. Feinstein) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    To acknowledge and salute the contributions of coin collectors.

Whereas in 1982, after a period of 28 years, the Congress of the United States 
        resumed the United States commemorative coin programs;
Whereas since 1982, 37 of the Nation's worthy institutions, organizations, 
        foundations, and programs have been commemorated under the coin 
        programs;
Whereas since 1982, the Nation's coin collectors have purchased nearly 
        49,000,000 commemorative coins that have yielded nearly $1,800,000,000 
        in revenue and more than $407,000,000 in surcharges benefitting a 
        variety of deserving causes;
Whereas the United States Capitol has benefitted from the commemorative coin 
        surcharges that have supported such commendable projects as the 
        restoration of the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol dome, the 
        furtherance of the development of the United States Capitol Visitor 
        Center, and the planned National Garden at the United States Botanic 
        Gardens on the Capitol grounds;
Whereas surcharges from the year 2000 coin program commemorating the Library of 
        Congress bicentennial benefit the Library of Congress bicentennial 
        programs, educational outreach activities (including schools and 
        libraries), and other activities of the Library of Congress; and
Whereas the United States Capitol Visitor Center commemorative coin program will 
        commence in January 2001, with the surcharges designated to further 
        benefit the Capitol Visitor Center: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the 
United States acknowledges and salutes the ongoing generosity, loyalty, 
and significant role that coin collectors have played in supporting our 
Nation's meritorious charitable organizations, foundations, 
institutions, and programs, including the United States Capitol, the 
Library of Congress, and the United States Botanic Gardens.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6147]


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

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.
    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 9, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. First Carolina Financial Services, Inc., Durham, North Carolina; 
to become a bank holding company by acquiring at least 95 percent of 
the voting shares of First Carolina State Bank, Rocky Mount, North 
Carolina, and Pisgah Community Bank, Asheville, North Carolina.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 9, 2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6147 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------
                                                  ------------------ ------------------ --------------
                                                        1998                1997              1996
                                                  ------------------ ------------------ --------------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>                <C>   
Average common shares outstanding - basic             5,371,686          5,102,854          5,064,347
Average common shares outstanding - diluted           5,508,898          5,165,290          5,077,950
               
Net income                                           $6,708,929         $6,720,785         $5,220,774

Per share amount - basic                                  $1.25              $1.32              $1.03
Per share amount - diluted                                $1.22              $1.30              $1.03
</TABLE>

     

     Earnings  per share  have been  restated  for each year  presented  for the
aquisition  of  Community  Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  which  was  accounted  for as a
pooling-of-interest.  Earnings per share amounts for each year presented reflect
the 5% stock  dividend  paid on November 29, 1994 and  December  22,  1995,  the
5-for-4  stock split  effected  on August 23,  1996 and the 2-for-1  stock split
effected on August 22, 1997.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WrittenStatement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

 

**Pursuantto Section 906**

 

**ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Theundersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer ofEmergency Medical Services Corporation, as general partner of Emergency MedicalServices L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Company”), each herebycertifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)          the Form 10-Qof the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed on thedate hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)         the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ William A. Sanger                                                                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | William A. Sanger                                                                                 |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                           |
|   | Emergency Medical  Services Corporation, as

general partner of  Emergency Medical

Services L.P. |
|   | May 4, 2010                                                                                  |
|   |                                                                                              |
|   | /s/ Randel G. Owen                                                                                |
|   | Randel G. Owen                                                                                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                           |
|   | Emergency Medical  Services Corporation, as

general partner of  Emergency Medical

Services L.P. |
|   | May 4, 2010                                                                                  |

 

----
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 404TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 23rd day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Eleazar Vasquez, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00277-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 03-CR-1173-G)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed

and remanded in part. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN

PART and REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Costs of the appeal are adjudged

twenty-five percent against appellant although he is exempt from payment due to his

affidavit of inability to pay costs and seventy-five percent against appellee and it is

ordered to pay its costs of the appeal from which it is not exempt by statute.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 6th day of October, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 24

- 11290
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus KEVIN SCOTT THOMPSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:23

- cr

- 00029

- RAH

- KFP

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11290 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 24

- 11290

Before J ORDAN , L AGOA , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard

- Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver ofthe right to appeal difficult or debatable issues or even blatant error). USCA11 Case: 24-11290 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 148 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 148

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. RECORDS OF EACH JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL 
              CEREMONIES.

    (a) In General.--Upon the conclusion of the business of a joint 
congressional committee on Presidential inaugural ceremonies and the 
closing out of its affairs, all records, files, documents, and other 
materials in the possession, custody, or control of the joint committee 
shall be transferred subject to--
            (1) such terms and conditions relating to access and use of 
        such materials as the Committee on Rules and Administration of 
        the Senate shall prescribe; and
            (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474 (96th Congress, 
        2d Session).
    (b) Prior Records.--The records, files, documents, and other 
materials of any joint congressional committee on Presidential 
inaugural ceremonies in the custody of the Senate on the date of 
adoption of this resolution shall be shall be transferred subject to--
            (1) such terms and conditions relating to access and use of 
        such materials as the Committee on Rules and Administration of 
        the Senate shall prescribe; and
            (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474 (96th Congress, 
        2d Session).

            Passed the Senate October 11 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 148

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  To provide for the disposition and archiving of the records, files, 
  documents, and other materials of joint congressional committees on 
                         inaugural ceremonies.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           MFN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Nine Months Ended
                                                              December 31, 1999
                                                              -----------------
<S>                                                           <C>
BASIC
  Net income.................................................    $    20,529
  Average common shares outstanding..........................     10,000,000
  Earnings before extraordinary credit.......................    $      1.90
  Extraordinary gain from early retirement of debt...........           0.15
                                                                 -----------
  Earnings per common share..................................    $      2.05
                                                                 ===========
DILUTED
  Net income.................................................    $    20,529
  Average common shares and common share equivalents
   outstanding...............................................     10,000,661
  Earnings before extraordinary credit.......................    $      1.90
  Extraordinary gain from early retirement of debt...........           0.15
                                                                 -----------
  Earnings per common share..................................    $      2.05
                                                                 ===========
</TABLE>

   Due to the Company's emergence from the Voluntary Case and the
implementation of Fresh Start Reporting, the presentation of earnings per share
for the Predecessor Company is not meaningful.
#### Celia P. SMITH, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, and Macrobiotic Foundation of Florida, Inc., Appellees.

No. 87-2196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1988.

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1988.

Celia P. Smith, m pro. per.

Geri Atkinson-Hazelton, General Counsel, and John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

No appearance for Macrobiotic Foundation of Florida, Inc.

Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State Beverage Dep’t. v. Ernal, Inc.,*115 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).
* 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

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50658

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO MUNOZ-SAUCEDO, also known as Guillermo 

Martinez-Morales, also known as Anthony Lee Martinez, also

known as Guillermo Morales Martinez, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2409-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo MunozSaucedo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 21 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the President of the United States is authorized to conduct 
military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our 
NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and 
Montenegro).

            Passed the Senate March 23, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air 
    operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of 
                  Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
```
#### Roy De JAMES, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Appellee.

No. 87-919.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1988.

Sam W. Kleinfeld, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Steven E. Stark and Kimberly A. Cook, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment for the defendant city, entered upon a directed verdict granted at the conclusion of all the evidence on the trial court’s own motion, is reversed for a new trial because the record raises jury questions as to the liability of its police officers for (a) trespass into the plaintiff’s home and (b) assault and battery through the use of excessive force upon him. There is no other harmful error.

Reversed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe L. BUCKLEY.

No. KA 87 1081.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1987.

Charles Z. Ranel, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

George H. Ware Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles A. Shropshire and William G. Carmichael, Asst. Dist. Attys., Clinton, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before WATKINS, CARTER and CHIASSON *, JJ.

*

 Judge Remy Chiasson, retired, has been assigned temporarily to this court by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to fill the vacancy created by the death of Judge John S. Covington.

REMY CHIASSON, Retired Judge.

Defendant was charged by bill of information with simple assault in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:38. After a bench trial defendant was found guilty as charged, sentenced to serve 30 days in the parish jail, imposition of which was suspended with defendant being placed on one year unsupervised probation, and was fined $150.00 plus court costs. Defendant now appeals this conviction and sentence. The conviction and sentence are for simple assault which only carries a maximum penalty of under $200 or ninety (90) days, or both and is therefore not triable by jury. La. Const, art. 1, § 17; LSA-R.S. 14:38; LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 779. Only cases triable by jury are appealable. La. Const, art. V, § 10(A)(3).

This case is not appealable nor does the matter comply with Rule 4, Uniform Rules-Court of Appeal and will not, therefore, be considered as an application for writ of review. See *State v. Clause,*486 So.2d 1206, footnote 2 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986). For the above reasons this appeal is hereby dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.