alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John W. ROBERTS and Ronald A. Jaeger, Appellants, v. Francis E. BROOKS and Sarah A. Brooks, Appellees.

No. 5616.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 25, 1983.

Arthur L. Robson, Fairbanks, for appellants.

Barry Donnellan, Fairbanks, for appel-lees.

Before BURKE, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR, MATTHEWS and COMPTON, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The superior court’s order following our remand renders moot the issues raised by the appellants in *Roberts*v. Brooks, 649 P.2d 710 (Alaska 1982). This appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
#### In re ESTATE OF Julia C. TYLER, Deceased.

No. 89-0239.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1989.

Robert W. Goldman of Steel Hector Davis Bums *&*Middleton, West Palm Beach, for appellant-George C. Slaton, as Personal Representative.

George P. Ord of Alley, Maass, Rogers, Lindsay & Chauncey, P.A., Palm Beach, and Kathleen R. Sherby of Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee-Centerre Trust Co. of St. Louis.

Paul E. Roman of Woods, Oviatt, Gil-man, Sturman & Clarke, Boca Raton, for amicus curiae-Louise Cherry Hargett.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a non-final order granting Centerre Trust Company of St. Louis’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person. We affirm.

The “formal notice” given to Centerre by the Estate of Julia Tyler pursuant to section 731.301(l)(a) was insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over Centerre concerning its activities as co-trustee. *See In re Estate of Black,*528 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Further, there is no jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s Long Arm Statute. The complaint does not allege that Centerre was “conducting business” within the state as *1308required by section 48.193(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). Nor is there jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193(l)(f)l because the complaint does not allege that Centerre was engaged in “solicitation” within the state. Lastly, the complaint fails to establish jurisdiction over a person “committing a tortious act within this state” pursuant to section 48.193(l)(b). Although the complaint alleges that Centerre breached its fiduciary duty to the estate, it fails to allege that any injury has yet occurred in Florida. The will provides that the situs of the trust is St. Louis, the location of the corporate trustee. Although all of the assets of the trust are as yet in Florida, there is no allegation that there has been a diminution of those assets at this time. Thus, there are insufficient allegations on which to establish jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193(l)(b). *See Phillips v. Orange Company,*522 So.2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); *International Harvester Company v. Mann,*460 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

WALDEN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 18

Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 31, 2001

Mr. NEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House of

Representatives.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, January 31, 2001, it stand ad4 journed until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 6, 2001.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Ansoft Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicholas Csendes,
President 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, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with 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: July 14, 2004

                                    By: /s/ Nicholas Csendes
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Nicholas Csendes
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38635

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN FREDERICK HAMANN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 370

Filed: February 24, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

John Frederick Hamann pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Hamann to a unified term 

of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Hamann filed an I.C.R. 35 

motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Hamann appeals, 

challenging only the excessiveness of his sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hamann’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Avado Brands, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on  Form  S-8  (Nos.  33-49748,  33-68978,  333-3764,  333-3736,  333-56138  and
333-74422) and the registration  statement on Form S-3 (No.  333-25205) of Avado
Brands,  Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2002,  relating to the  consolidated
balance  sheets of Avado  Brands,  Inc. as of December 30, 2001 and December 31,
2000 and the related consolidated  statements of earnings,  stockholders' equity
and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended  December 30, 2001,  which report  appears in the December 30, 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of Avado Brands, Inc.


KPMG

Atlanta, Georgia
April 1, 2002
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 48

Designating the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ‘‘National Girl Scout

Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. ABRAHAM,

Mr. GRAMM, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BOND, Mr.

KOHL, Mr. BURNS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.

DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. EDWARDS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.

REID, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.

LIEBERMAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. HATCH, and Mr.

SPECTER) submitted the following resolution; which was Referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

MARCH 2, 1999

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ‘‘National

Girl Scout Week’’.

Whereas March 12, 1999, is the 87th anniversary of the

founding of the Girl Scouts of the United States of

America;

Whereas on March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts became the first

national organization for girls to be granted a Federal

charter by Congress;
2

SRES 48 ATS

Whereas through annual reports required to be submitted to

Congress by its charter, the Girl Scouts regularly informs

Congress of its progress and program initiatives;

Whereas the Girl Scouts is dedicated to inspiring girls and

young women with the highest ideals of character, conduct, and service to others so that they may become

model citizens in their communities;

Whereas the Girl Scouts offers girls aged 5 through 17 a variety of opportunities to develop strong values and life

skills and provides a wide range of activities to meet

girls’ interests and needs;

Whereas the Girl Scouts has a membership of nearly

3,000,000 girls and over 850,000 adult volunteers, and

is one of the preeminent organizations in the United

States committed to girls growing strong in mind, body,

and spirit; and

Whereas by fostering in girls and young women the qualities

on which the strength of the United States depends, the

Girl Scouts, for 87 years, has significantly contributed to

the advancement of the United States: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week beginning March 7,

3 1999, as ‘‘National Girl Scout Week’’; and

4 (2) requests the President to issue a proclama5 tion designating the week beginning March 7, 1999,

6 as ‘‘National Girl Scout Week’’ and calling on the
3

SRES 48 ATS

1 people of the United States to observe the day with

2 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin ABBOTT.

No. 87-CQ-1255.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal— Other; applying for certified question; to *81the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KW-7602; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 299-714.

Certification granted. In response to the certified question, Louisiana Act 851 of 1986 should be applied retroactively to uphold the validity of habitual offender proceedings where orders of appeal were entered prior to the sentencing of the defendants as habitual offenders.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the requested certification and bring the case up for briefing, argument and opinion.
#### John ECKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 6726.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Dec. 23, 1982.

Rich Zahniser, Asst. Public Defender, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Mary Anne Henry, Dist. Atty., Ketchi-kan, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

SINGLETON, Judge.

Ecker was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree. AS 11.41.410(a)(4). His victim was his twelve-year-old adopted daughter. Evidence presented at the hearing established that Ecker had been sexually molesting the victim for five years and engaging in full penetration with her two or three times a week for the past two years. The trial court found Ecker’s case to be one of the worst of its class and sentenced him to a period of six years’ imprisonment with no part of the sentence suspended. Ecker is to be eligible for parole at the discretion of the Parole Board. Ecker appeals his sentence contending that it is excessive. Specifically, he contends that the six-year presumptive sentence specified in AS 12.55.125(c)(1) for offenders who use a firearm or cause serious physical injury *578creates a ceiling which cannot be exceeded in the absence of a finding of extraordinary circumstances. The trial court concluded that the substantial psychological damage suffered by the victim coupled with the substantial duration of the sexual abuse made Ecker’s case among the most serious of its class. *See*AS 12.55.155(c)(10). Based on this finding, the court concluded that Ecker deserved a sentence equal to one that could have been imposed on an offender who used a firearm or caused serious physical injury to an older victim as a result of a single isolated assault.

The trial court carefully considered the *Chaney*criteria. *See State v. Chaney,*477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). The sentence imposed is potentially more lenient than a presumptive six-year sentence imposed on a first offender who causes serious physical injury or possesses a firearm since Ecker is eligible for parole and one presumptively sentenced is not. Given the trial court’s fact findings, which are amply supported in the record, we hold that the sentence imposed was not clearly mistaken. *McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).

The sentence of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Helen Orkin, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 19, 1958.

*455*Samuel Schacter*for William Orkin, petitioner.

*Arthur D. Strahl,*respondent in person, and *Jacob S. Strahl*for Leo Insel, individually and as executors, respondents.

*Milbanh, Tweed, Hope & Hadley (George H. Bailey*of counsel), for Bache *&*Co., respondent.

*Roe $ Kramer*for Highland View Cemetery, respondent.

*Diamond & Dreifuss (Murray J. Dreifuss*of counsel), for Shirley Seidner, as general guardian of Lawrence M. Seidner, infant, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

This is an application by one of the distributees for an order opening the proceeding instituted by decedent’s husband under section 206 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. That proceeding has been decided in the petitioner’s favor.

It is the contention of the moving party that she was not served with citation or notice of the application in the reverse discovery proceeding. This statement is challenged by the process server, but in any event, the objection has been waived by the movant in failing to appear specially on this application. The cases are clear that by submitting to the court’s jurisdiction without qualifying her appearance specially, the jurisdictional objection is waived. *(Dreskin*v. *Dreskin,*73 N. Y. S. 2d 764; *Braman*v. *Braman,*236 App. Div. 164.) Furthermore, it is equally clear under the authorities that an attack upon the merits of the proceeding constitutes a general appearance. *(Citizens Trust Co.*v. *Prescott & Son,*221 App. Div. 426.) The moving papers very definitely assert just such a challenge.

The grounds relied upon by the moving party in support of her application, apart from the traverse of service of process, failed to meet the standards imposed by subdivision 6 of section 20 of the Surrogate’s Court Act as a condition to reopen hearings. There is no newly discovered evidence offered to challenge the finding in favor of the petitioner. The fact that the representative of the estate did not invoke the bar of section 347 of the Civil Practice Act does not constitute a reason for allowing a retrial.

The other reason urged in support of the application, namely the alleged failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an infant respondent, is not available to the moving party on this application and in any event, whatever defect may have existed in this connection was cured by the infant’s representation by his general guardian.

The motion is in all respects denied,

Submit order on notice,
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04599**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04599\04599_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04599\04599_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04599\04599_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04599\04599_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04599\04599_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04599\04599_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04599\Certification Statement Plant ID 04599.pdf Plant certification statement 04599\Supporting Documentation\04599_Gorgas Section 2_3 Copy 5 Question 2-31.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04599\Supporting Documentation\04599_Gorgas Water Balance - WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04599\Supporting Documentation\ICR-Plant-Gorgas - Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04599\04599_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04599\04599_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04599\Supporting Documentation\04599_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, ZHD1 DSG-H 53 1.
    Date: April 16-17, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 
8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: David H. Weinberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Blvd., Room 5b01, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-6973, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#236742554a470d74464a4d41465144634d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df9bbea9b6bbf188bab6b1bdbaadb89fb1b6b7f1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7830 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
MEDCROSS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
THIS COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,500,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,432,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                   652,019
<INVENTORY>                                    557,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,383
<PP&E>                                       5,474,888
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,618,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,433,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,526,052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,475,000
<COMMON>                                        74,253
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,749,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,433,830
<SALES>                                      2,383,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,383,076
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,575,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               680,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,191,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (23,064,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (23,064,240)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.53)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MILTON DELACRUZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4452 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Brian Iten and Charles Sniffen, Judges. Milton Delacruz, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.