alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DADE COUNTY and Marvin Braun, Petitioners, v. Kirk L. FROHME, et al., Respondents.

No. 86-599.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 27, 1986.

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel and Alan Gold and Sheila Wolfson, Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty. and Eileen Ball Mehta, Asst. Co. Atty., Miami, for petitioners.

*141John G. Fletcher, South Miami, for respondents.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

This petition seeks certiorari review of a decision of the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, which invalidated a zoning boundary change adopted by the Dade County commission. In striking down the resolution, which permitted a commercial use to intrude into a residentially-zoned area contrary to the recommendations of the county’s professional staffs and the terms of its land use plan, the lower court stated, in a unanimous decision authored by Judge Feder:

> The neighborhood property in question is zoned EU-1 residential and is an area backing up on or bordered on one side by an office complex zoned RU-5A. The application which was approved covers a single finger projection which juts out from the RU-5A area into the EU-1 residential area and which finger would be surrounded on three sides by the EU-1 residences. Rather than being the proverbial Dutch Boy finger in the dike holding back the flood, it is more a penetrating and impermissible rape of the neighborhood, presaging the flood to come.

> The test to be applied is the so-called “fairly debatable” rule: i.e., is there sufficient factually supported or legally cognizable grounds to make it fairly debatable as to whether the County Commission was justified in its action. *Allapattah Community vs City of Miami,*379 So2nd 387 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1980); *Watson vs Mayfield Property, Inc.,*223 So2nd 368, (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1969) Cert. discharged 233 So2nd 390 (Fla.1970).

> On the contrary, we find there can be no debate, fair or otherwise, to justify the action of the County Commission herein and do, therefore, reverse the granting of the rezoning application.

The record demonstrates that the order below, far from representing a departure from the essential requirements of the law, see *City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant,*419 So.2d 624 (Fla.1982), is a perfect reflection of the principle that

> [t]he law ... will not and cannot approve a zoning regulation — or any governmental action adversely affecting the rights of others — which is based on no more than the fact that those who support it have the power to work their will.

*Allapattah Community Association, Inc. of Florida v. City of Miami,*379 So.2d 387, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980). See also *Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach,*88 So.2d 141 (Fla.1956) (disapproving spot zoning); *County of Brevard v. Woodham,*223 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (same), cert. denied, 229 So.2d 872 (Fla.1969); 7 Fla. Jur.2d Building, Zoning, and Land Controls § 110 (1978). We heartily approve the decision under review.

Certiorari denied.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 375

Supporting the efforts of Bolivia’s democratically elected government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. DODD, Mr. HELMS, Mr. DEWINE, and Mr.

GRAHAM) submitted the the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Supporting the efforts of Bolivia’s democratically elected

government.

Whereas the stability of democracy in Latin America and the

eradication of illegal narcotics from the Andean nations

are vital national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the democratically elected Government of Bolivia

has taken dramatic steps to eradicate illegal narcotics

under the Dignity Plan, resulting in the elimination of 80

percent of the illegal coca crop in just two years, a record

of achievement unmatched worldwide;

Whereas the Government of Bolivia is now approaching the

completion of coca eradication in the Chapare and will

begin eradication operations in the Yungas regions in

2002;
2

•SRES 375 IS

Whereas there are indications that narcotics traffickers from

outside Bolivia are stepping up efforts to keep a foothold

in Bolivia by agitating among the rural poor and indigenous populations, creating civil disturbances, blockading

roads, organizing strikes and protests, and taking actions

designed to force the Government of Bolivia to abandon

its aggressive counter narcotics campaign; and

Whereas the government of Bolivian President Hugo Banzer

Suarez has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with

the protesters through dialogue and openness while respecting human rights: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That (a) the Senate calls upon the Govern2 ment of Bolivia to continue its successful program of coca

3 eradication and looks forward to the Government of Bo4 livia achieving its commitment to the total eradication of

5 illegal coca in Bolivia by the end of 2002.

6 (b) It is the sense of the Senate that—

7 (1) the United States, as a full partner in Bo8 livia’s efforts to build democracy, to eradicate illegal

9 narcotics, and to reduce poverty through develop10 ment and economic growth, should fully support the

11 democratically elected Government of Bolivia;

12 (2) the release of emergency supplemental as13 sistance already approved by the United States for

14 sustainable development activities in Bolivia should

15 be accelerated;

16 (3) on a priority basis, the President should

17 look for additional ways to provide increased tan-
3

•SRES 375 IS

1 gible support to the people and Government of Bo2 livia;

3 (4) the Government of Bolivia should continue

4 to respect the human rights of all of its citizens and

5 continue to discuss legitimate concerns of Bolivia’s

6 rural population; and

7 (5) indigenous leaders should enter into discus8 sions with the government on issues of concern and

9 cease provocative acts that could lead to escalating

10 violence.

11 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

12 a copy of this resolution to the President.

Æ
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 235

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election Law

Guidebook.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was amended and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate

Election Law Guidebook.

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Adminis2 tration shall prepare a revised edition of the Senate Elec3 tion Law Guidebook, Senate Document 105–12, and that

4 such document shall be printed as a Senate document.

5 SEC. 2. There shall be printed, beyond the usual

6 number, 600 additional copies of the document specified

7 in the first section for the use of the Committee on Rules

8 and Administration.

Æ
#### J. Minos SIMON v. Henry C. PERRET, Jr., et al.

No. 89-CC-1238.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Perret, Henry C. Jr.; MacDonald, Ian A.; Thibodaux, Leslie Paul L.P.; Du-*1219puis, Donald L.; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 89-0739; 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 89-0739; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW89-0376.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

T&G, L.L.C., GARRY W. CRAIGHEAD,

TRACY CRAIGHEAD and EL PASO

FIRST CARE CLINIC, INC.,

 Appellants,

v.

CAPITAL ACTIVE FUNDING, INC.,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-03-00420-CV

Appeal from

 327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2003-1930)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(b). Because it appears the appellants no

longer wish to pursue the appeal, we will dismiss for want of prosecution. 

A default judgment was entered against the appellants in this case on June 12, 2003.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court on September 8, 2003. On January 16, 2004,

Appellants filed a notice of bankruptcy. As a result, this appeal was automatically abated pending

the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. On October 21, 2008, having

received notice that the Appellants’ bankruptcy cases had been closed, this Court issued an order

reinstating the appeal. The order included notice that the Appellants’ brief was due to be filed

November 20, 2008.

By letter dated December 3, 2008, the Clerk of this court notified Appellants of our intent

to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution due to Appellants’ failure to file an appellants’ brief

or motion for extension of time. The Clerk informed Appellants that the appeal would be dismissed
without further notice unless any party could show groundsfor continuing the appeal within ten days

of the date of the notice. We have not received a response.

This Court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant has failed to

file his brief within the time prescribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure.

TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San

Antonio 1998, no pet.). We have given written notice of our intent to dismiss this appeal and have

requested a response stating a reasonable basis for the failure to file an appellants’ brief. Appellants

have not responded. We see no purpose which would be served by declining to dismiss this appeal

at this stage in the proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(b), 42.3(c) and

38.8(a)(1), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

February 5, 2009 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

Chew, C.J., not participating
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 552 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Related Links

Oil & Gas Code Definitions

Code Type: Well Type Get List

Select code type and click on "Get List"

Well Type Definitions

Code Definition

AGD Acid Gas Disposal

AI Air Injection

CBM Coal Bed Methane

DF Dump Flood Injector

DFP Dump Flood Injector/Producer

GASC Gas Condensate

GASD Dry Gas

GASN Nitrogen Gas Well

GI Gas Injection

GS Gas Storage

INJP Injector, Producer

OG Oil & Gas

ST Stratigraphic Test

SWD Salt Water Disposal

WI Water Injection

WS Water Source

[DMR Home] [Disclaimer] [Privacy] [Security] [Feedback]

Well Search

NDIC Oil & Gas Code Help Index Page 1 of 1

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/codehelp.asp 2/4/2013
From: Kirby, Nathan J.

To: Brent Ruminski

Cc: Ritter, Alison M.

Subject: RE: Data Use Agreement for NDIC Subscription

Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 5:05:19 PM

Brent,

Per our disclaimer at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/disclaimer.asp . We as an agency hold no

ownership of the data, it is provided as is and free to use. The only cost is with the subscription to

access it electronically.

Thanks

Nathan

Nathan J. Kirby

Database Design Analyst II

NDIC Oil and Gas Division

701-328-8020

From: Brent Ruminski [mailto:Brent.Ruminski@erg.com] 

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:18 AM

To: Kirby, Nathan J.

Subject: Data Use Agreement for NDIC Subscription

Hi Nathan,

My name is Brent Ruminski, an engineer at Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). I just spoke with one

of your colleagues named Allison and she provided me your contact information. For background

information, my company is under contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and we had a “basic subscription” service that recently expired.

The reason I am contacting you is we currently have a unique situation where we performed several

analyses using data obtained through our “basic subscription” with NDIC. We performed these

analyses to support an EPA rulemaking. Part of the rulemaking process requires EPA to release as

much their analyses and raw data to the public as possible with the exceptions of copyrighted data.

After reviewing the agreement and your website, I do not see any copyright claims or data use

agreement. Can you please confirm that the raw data obtained through the “basic subscription” with

NDIC is not copyrighted and that NDIC does not object to EPA publishing this raw data electronically

on regulations.gov. Of course, full citation to NDIC will be provided with the data.

I provided the specific data we used in the attachment (I deleted most rows to minimize file size).

We also recorded monthly production numbers using the subscription service which would also be

published.

Please let me know If you would like to set up a call to discuss further or need any other

information.

Thank you,

Brent Ruminski

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)

14555 Avion Parkway Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151

703-633-1701 (office)
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 quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 8, 2007



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Amendment to Change of Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.49 
  
 AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into between Bruce C. Edwards (“Employee”) and Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
(“Powerwave”) effective as of this 3rd day of May 2005. 
  
 Recitals: 
  

	 	A.	Employee and Powerwave are parties to a Change in Control Agreement entered into as of August 1, 2003 (“Agreement.”) 

  

	 	B.	Employee was the Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave at the time the Change in Control Agreement was executed. Employee is now the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of
Powerwave. 

  

	 	C.	Employee and Powerwave desire to amend the Change in Control Agreement as set forth below. 

  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and the mutual covenants and conditions contained below, Employee and Powerwave agree as
follows: 
  

	1.	Employee and Powerwave agree that all references in the Change in Control Agreement to the term Chief Executive Officer are deleted and replaced with Executive Chairman of the Board
as Employee is presently the Executive Chairman of the Board and no longer the Chief Executive Officer. 

  

	2.	Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Change in Control Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date indicated above.

  

									
	 “Executive Chairman of the Board”
	 	 	 	 “Company”

	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Bruce C. Edwards
	 	 	 	 Powerwave Technologies, Inc.

	 Bruce C. Edwards
	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Andrew J. Sukawaty

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Andrew J. Sukawaty, Chairman, Compensation

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Committee
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Thomas T. Higgins, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeuroMetrix, 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date: May 14, 2010

/s/ THOMAS T. HIGGINS Thomas T. Higgins Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---



QuickLinks
#### HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, a special taxing district, Appellant, v. Rosemarie RYALS and Richard Ryals, Appellees.

No. 87-1728.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 16, 1988.

Donald M. Birch, Jr., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Joseph D. Krol, of Ossinsky, Krol and Hess, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

COBB, Judge.

Halifax Hospital Medical Center (Halifax) appeals an order of the trial court dismissing its claim against Richard Ryals for medical expenses incurred by his wife, Rosemarie Ryals. She guaranteed payment of the hospital charges, but he did not. The trial court granted his motion to dismiss, apparently on the basis that the common law “doctrine of necessaries” is no longer viable in Florida. If the wife is not liable for the necessary medical expenses of her husband, as was held in *Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Smith,*497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986), then, *ar-guendo,*the converse must be true in the name of equal protection: he cannot be liable for hers.

It would seem logical that either both spouses or neither (in the absence of express contract) should be liable for the other's medical necessaries. *Cf. Webb v. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority,*521 So.2d 199 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). Nevertheless, until such time as the Florida Legislature alters the common law rule, we are-bound by that rule: a husband is financially responsible for the necessary maintenance of his wife. *See Shands,*497 So.2d at 646; *Phillips v. Sanchez,*35 Fla. 187, 17 So. 363 (1895).

REVERSED.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 161 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 161

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2001

        Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Honoring the 19 United States servicemen who died in the terrorist 
  bombing of the Khobar Towers military housing compound in Dhahran, 
                    Saudi Arabia, on June 25, 1996.

Whereas June 25, 2001, marks the fifth anniversary of the tragic terrorist 
        bombing of the Khobar Towers military housing compound in Dhahran, Saudi 
        Arabia;
Whereas 19 members of the United States Air Force were killed in the bombing and 
        250 other United States military personnel were wounded;
Whereas the 19 airmen killed while serving their country were Captain 
        Christopher Adams, Sergeant Daniel Cafourek, Sergeant Millard Campbell, 
        Senior Airman Earl Cartrette, Jr., Sergeant Patrick Fennig, Captain 
        Leland Haun, Sergeant Michael Heiser, Sergeant Kevin Johnson, Sergeant 
        Ronald King, Sergeant Kendall Kitson, Jr., Airman First Class 
        Christopher Lester, Airman First Class Brent Marthaler, Airman First 
        Class Brian McVeigh, Airman First Class Peter Morgera, Sergeant Thanh 
        Nguyen, Airman First Class Joseph Rimkus, Senior Airman Jeremy Taylor, 
        Airman First Class Justin Wood, and Airman First Class Joshua Woody;
Whereas the families of these brave airmen still mourn their loss;
Whereas on September 24, 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to House 
        Concurrent Resolution 200 of the 104th Congress honoring the victims of 
        that terrorist bombing;
Whereas those guilty of the attack have yet to be brought to justice; and
Whereas terrorism remains a constant and ever-present threat around the world: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the terrorist bombing 
of the Khobar Towers military housing compound in Dhahran, Saudi 
Arabia, the Congress--
            (1) recognizes the sacrifice of the 19 members of the 
        United States Air Force who died in that attack; and
            (2) calls upon every American to pause and pay tribute to 
        those brave airmen.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```