alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jon Andrew JONES, etc., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 1, 1987.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, and Michael L. O’Neill, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

Jon Jones challenges the imposition of $200 in costs as a condition of probation. Jones claims the costs are improper since he was adjudicated indigent for purposes of trial and there was no determination by the court that he had the ability to pay such costs.

The court has the authority to direct in an order of probation that a presently indigent defendant repay court costs. *State v. Byrd,*378 So.2d 1231 (Fla.1979). However, *733before the provision for repayment is *enforced,*a judicial determination must be made that the defendant has the ability to pay. *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947, 950 (Fla.1984); *see also Fuller v. Oregon,*417 U.S. 40, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974).

The $200 in costs imposed on Jones as a condition of probation cannot be enforced until such time, if any, that Jones’s probation is sought to be revoked because of his failure to perform that condition. At that time, the trial court will have to apply *Jenkins*and determine whether Jones has the ability to pay any costs imposed prior to the revocation of his probation. *See State v. Castro,*491 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).1

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence entered below are

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

1

. We recede from our prior opinion in *Harris v. State,*507 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), insofar as it conflicts with this opinion.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131994 & (61) 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: 131994 COA: 259532 Saginaw CC: 04-024226-FC TRUMON DONTAE CANNON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of February 2, 20 07, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is GR ANTED, limited to the issues of the scope of predatory conduct defined in Offense Variable 10, MC L 777.40(3)(a), and whet her the trial court properly assessed 15 points for predatory conduct in this case. The parties shall address whether predatory conduct is limited to explo itation of a “vulnerable victim” and, if so, what factors may be considered in determin ing whether a victim is “vulnerable.”

We ORDER the Saginaw Circ uit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Mi chigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are inv ited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determinati on of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

p0516 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.

May 23, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 10.5

LOGO

1100 LOUISIANA SUITE 3800 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218    TELEPHONE
(713) 651-9191    FAX (713) 651-0849

June 25, 2007

Repsol YPF, S.A.

Paseo de la Castellana 278-280

28046 Madrid

Spain

Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the references to Ryder Scott Company and
the inclusion of information derived from our reports in Section 2.2.1.1 Oil and Gas Reserves in Repsol YPF, S.A.s annual report on Form 20-F for the year-end December 31, 2006, and in the Supplementary Information
on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited information) in the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein. We also consent to the reference of Ryder Scott Company and inclusion of information derived from our
reports through incorporation by reference of the named Formed 20-F in Registration Statements Nos, 333-12254 and 333-10668 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ryder Scott Company audited all the areas in Dubai, Spain, Algeria, Libya, Trinidad & Tobago, Ecuador and Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in the United States in which
Repsol YPF has an interest. These external audits were performed with an as of date of September 30, 2006. The properties located in Trinidad & Tobago were also audited with an as of date of December 31, 2006.



Very truly yours,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P./s/ Herman G. AcunaHerman G. Acuna, P.E.Senior International Vice President
Order filed, September 30, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00514

- CV

____________ ELIZABETH LAGUNA , Appellant

V.

HOUSTON HOUSING AUTH ORITY , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1031234



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 09, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Laura Cutherell , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 19 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Erin Jes si ca Ei le r, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,
v. Ave ra Mc Ken na n Ho sp it al ; Trea ti ng Med ic al Pers on ne l, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta- Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Decem

be r 27 , 20 16 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

4, 2 01 7 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Erin Eil er ap pe al s th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s di sm is sa l of he r pr o se co m pl ai nt 1 al le gi ng m ed ic al m al pr act ic e, li be l, an d sl an de r. Upo n c a r e f u l rev ie w, we fin d no
The Hon or ab le Lawren ce L. Pi ers ol , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta
.ba si s fo r rev ers al be cau se , am on g ot he r reas on s, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at

itlac ke d s ub

ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on , se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(1 ); Key Med . Su pp ly, In c. v. Bur wel l , 76 4 F.3 d 95 5, 96 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (d e no vo rev ie w), as Eil er di d no t rai se a qu es ti on of fed eral la w or ci te to a fed eral st atut e, se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1, an d di d no t al le ge an am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y s u f f i c i e nt fo r di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t of the di st ric t cou rt is affi rm ed

. Se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended May 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|     |  | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: July 11, 2005
#### Deloris WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, self insured, Appellee.

No. 87-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 29, 1987.

Sylvan A. Wells, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

John E. McLain, Jr., Orlando, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant/Williamson appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner deauthoriz-ing Dr. Wylie, the claimant’s treating psychiatrist, who had treated the claimant for a period of five years. Measured by the standard articulated in *Cal Koven’s Construction v. Lott,*473 So.2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) and *Gephart v. Certified Grocers,*482 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the order, insofar as it deauthorized Dr. Wylie, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and is therefore REVERSED.

MILLS, ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AMH Holdings, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  August 15, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Dana R. SnyderDana R. SynderInterim President and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) -29-
EX-10.1:



 





EXHIBIT 10.1





At the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of MMC held on May 19, 2005, MMC's stockholders
approved an amendment to each of the Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 2000 Senior Executive
Incentive and Stock Award Plan and the Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 2000 Employee Incentive and
Stock Award Plan to: (i) permit a one-time, voluntary exchange of certain outstanding stock options for
new stock options and (ii) prohibit subsequent exchanges unless stockholder approval is obtained.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Each of the undersigned officers of Cole Credit Property Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and

 

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

 

|   |   |         | **Cole Credit Property Trust, Inc.**

  |
|--------|--------|--------------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   |         |                                         | By:  | /s/ Christopher H. Cole |
|   |   |         |                                         | Name:  | Christopher H. Cole |
|   |   |         |                                         | Title:  | Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |   |         |                                         |   |   |
|   |   |         |                                         | By:  | /s/ D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr. |
|   |   |         |                                         | Name:  | D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr. |
|   | Date:  | May 15, 2008 |                                         | Title:  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director (Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer) |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such filing. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                                     0
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 33,019
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             437,415
<OTHER-SE>                                          (470,434)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               0
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     1,351,872
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,351,872
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547
uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m September 26, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation D ocket O perations West Building Ground Floor, Room W 1 2

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Section 333 Petition for Exemption , Exemption No.

12363 pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R.

Part 11

Dear Sir or Madam:

Brewster Fresh Produce f iled for a Petition f or E xemption/Rulemaking, Pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 , for the purposes of

c ontrolled, low

- risk, precision commercial agriculture

- related services over certain areas

of the United States

.

The docket number for this peti tion is Docket No. FAA

– 2016

– 493 1. The original petition lists the original 200 foot altitude limitation instead of the current 400 foot altitude

limitation. UASolutions Group, Inc. , on behalf of Brewster Fresh Produce , hereby
requests to amend Docket No. FAA

– 2016

– 493 1 from the 200 foot altitude restriction

listed in the original petition to the current accepted 400 foot altitude restriction

.

As this is an amendment asking for only a correction of an incorrect a ltitude to comply with current regulations, UASolutions Group, Inc., on behalf of Brewster Fresh

Produce respectfully submits that good cause exists so tha t notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment

.UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547
uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JAMES LAPINSKI AND

PATRICIA LAPINSKI

,

Appellant s

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 445

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

GREEN EMERALD HOMES, LLC,

ALEXANDRIA POINTE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC.

,

Appellee s

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed February 9 , 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Volusia County

, Randell H. Rowe, III , Judge.

James Lapinski and Patricia Lapinski , Port

Orange, pro se.

Christopher R. Evans and Douglas R.

Sargent , of Locke Lord LLP, West Palm

Beach, and Charles P. Gufford, of McCall a

Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for

Appellee , Green Tree Servicing, LLC

.

Mark P. Stopa, of Stopa Law Firm, Tampa,

for Appellee, Green Emerald Homes, LLC

.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary f i nal judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Appellee,

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, without further discussion, except that we strike from2

paragraph ten of the judgment any reference to the trial cou rt later entering a deficiency

judgment against Appellants. Appellee agreed to waive the right to pursue any deficiency

claim against Appellants as part of their settlement to resolve the case below.

FINAL JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, AS MODIFIED.

EVANDER

, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.
AAM-11-374-E 

July 11, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10308 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0698 

Ms. Ann-Marie Skubitz 

Human Resource Manager 

Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. 

780 S. Elmwood Avenue, P.O. Box 92 

Le Sueur, MN 56058 

Dear Ms. Skubitz: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated June 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. (Scott’s) for an exemption to allow Scott’s, which 

is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover 

its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. The FAA finds that you require 

exemption from part 120 of 14 CFR. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Scott’s. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. an exemption from part 

120 to the extent necessary to allow Scott’s, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Scott’s are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Scott’s part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure