alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOAN NE JORDAN ,
Case No. 5D 21

- 2104 LT C ase No. 2020

- CA

- 109 Appellant ,
v. WINN D IXIE STORES, INC., A F LORIDA PROFIT C OMPANY ,

Appellee

. ______________________________/ Decision filed July 12, 2022 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Putnam C ounty , Kenneth Jam es Janesk, Jud ge. Brian J. L ee, of M organ & M organ, J acksonville, f or Appellant. Josep h B. Stokes, III, and Angelica L. I nclan, of Saalfield S had , P.A., Jacksonville, f or Appellee

.
PER CUR IAM.
AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT , C .J. , SASSO an d WOZNIAK , JJ. , c oncur.
EXHIBIT 11

                              FINE HOST CORPORATION
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                            Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                             June 25,  June 26,    June 25,   June 26,
                                                1997       1996       1997        1996
                                             -----------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>        <C>      <C>           <C>  
Income applicable to Common Stock             $1,252        250     $2,100    $    509
Stock warrant accretion                            -       (260)         -      (1,300)
                                              ------       -----    ------     -------
Net income (loss) available to Common
      Stockholders                            $1,252        (10)    $2,100      $ (791)
                                              ======       =====    ======      =======

Weighted average number of common shares
      Outstanding  (Basic)                 8,901,812  2,306,096  8,266,101   2,177,148
Average convertible Preferred shares
      outstanding                                 -     939,197          -     939,197
Assumed conversion of:
      Warrants                                    -     391,708          -     387,260
      Options                               286,522      75,147    330,375      71,823
      Subordinated Notes                     37,188         --      37,188          --
                                         ----------   --------   ---------  ----------
Average number of shares of Common Stock
      outstanding assuming full dilution  9,225,522   3,712,148  8,633,664   3,575,428
                                          =========   =========  =========   =========

Net income (loss) per share 
assuming full dilution$                      $.14          $--     $   .24      $ .(22)
                                         =========       =====     =======      =======

</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### NASH v. STATE.

No. 19913.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1938.

Shelburne H. Glover, of Jefferson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Jack Fields by cutting and stabbing him with a knife.

No bills of exception are' brought forward.

 The testimony of appellant raised the issue of self-defense. It was the theory of the state, given sufficient support in the evidence, that deceased was unarmed at the time he was killed and was making no demonstration toward the appellant. It was the province of the jury to settle the conflicts in' the testimony. Their finding in favor of the state is supported by sufficient evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

*93On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Our re-examination of the record in the light of the appellant’s motion for rehearing leads us to the conclusion that the proper disposition of the appeal was made in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Order entered March 25 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01384
- CR
CHARLES EDWARD PHINI SEE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F13
- 70249
- H



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether ap pellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial co urt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effect ive representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Yuri
Benenson, certify that: 1.
I have
 reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trimol Group, Inc.2.
Based on my
 knowledge, this quarterly 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
 quarterly report;3.
Based on my
 knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
 in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
The
 registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
 Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and internal controls over
 financing reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
 and we have:a)
designed
 such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
designed and
 evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
 procedures to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
 financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
 purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as of a
 date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
 Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
 this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
 disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
 Evaluation Date;5.
The
 registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
 most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
 of registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
 function):a)
all
 significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
 which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
 summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
 auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
 whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
 a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
The
 registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
 report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
 in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
 to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
 with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  August 13,
 2008
By /s/ Yuri
 BenensonChief
 Executive Officer 22
-a..,.., .. 

Department ,f Energ~ 

Washington. - ~ 20585 

r.::· . · ... ~FF'" 

I j// 13 

James Mills, Attorney 

Division of Enforcement 

Federal Trade Commission 

6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Dear Mr. Mills: 

AUG l 

' ·' 

, i .~ I 7 1998 

1998 

The purpose of this letter is to ask that the FTC C( 1 sider elimir .i;~g loading style (front-loading 

or top-loading) as a product category for resident i ,: : clothes wa~ crs. 

Currently, FTC requires manufacturers to label cl .hes washer~ -~:sed on loading orientation 

Thus, high efficiency, front-loading washers arc c ·npared on!~ .\·ith other front-loaders on the 

"Energy Guide" label. This has the unfortun;:te " ~ct of r ~ki · 1:1•e front-loading washers 

appear inefficient, even though they may use for l- s energ~· th · ~op-loading machine of 

comparable size. This may confuse consumers ;ir lead them < cl)' from high efficiency 

machines in favor of top-loaders ti~ -.1 use 1~'(1rc ":' · gy. 

The "Energy Guide" label also app:ars to und ''T' e the r ,,,~, 

.STAR labeling program for appliances. Front-lo< :ng wa: 11er' 

label, indicating that they are more than twice a~ c 'lcient ;-is m 

efficiency standards. Therefore, it is miskndin& t · a consumer 

machine that reads 'i.Jses Most Energy,''\\ hilc a!~ carryi:1g ar 

A recent Department of Energy rukmaking estah: :ung n,· \ i' 

eliminates loading orientation as <l classification. -; hese tc: p1 

several years but we believe that it is in the consu1°1er's bes: inr 

classifications for labeling pwposc~ as soc111 as po -ible. 

.... of Energy's Et-.:ERGY 

,. ':ty for the ENERGY STAR 

·'.s that meet minimum 

) see a label on a front-loading 

::\ERGY STAR designation. 

· ·...:;:L~ures for clothes washers 

.l.J:·c will not take effect for 

·:st for FTC to adopt the new 
We hope you will seriously consider our recomm "1datioi: toe' ninate loading style as a product 

category. I have asked my staff to follow-up with you to ensu that you have all the information 

you need to fully consider this request. If you w01 : 1d like to di _-uss this further, feel free to call 

Mark Ginsberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary for R Jding Tech; logics, at 202/ 586-1510. 

Assistant St- ~retary 

Energy Effie ency and Rt .ewable Energy
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED
STATES CODE

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of CITGO Petroleum Corporation (the "Registrant"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 of
the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: May 7, 2004                       /s/ Jerry E. Thompson
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Name: Jerry E. Thompson
                                         Title: Chief Operating Officer
                                                (Acting Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 3.3

   AMENDMENT TO CERTIFCATE OF INCORPORATION OF ROSS SYSTEMS, INC. EFFECTING A
                               REVERSE STOCK SPLIT


A new paragraph to Article IV of the Company's  Certificate of Incorporation was
added effective April 26, 2001 as follows:

     "Simultaneously  with the effective date of the filing of this amendment to
the Corporation's  Certificate of Incorporation (the "Effective Date"), each ten
shares of Common  Stock of the  corporation  issued and  outstanding  or held as
treasury shares immediately prior to the Effective Date (the "Old Common Stock")
shall automatically be reclassified and continued (the "Reverse Split"), without
any action on the part of the holder thereof,  as one share of Common Stock. The
Corporation  shall not issue fractional  shares on account of the Reverse Split.
Holders of Old Common  Stock who would  otherwise be entitled to a fraction of a
share on account of the Reverse Split shall receive, upon surrender of the stock
certificates  formally  representing  shares of the Old Common Stock, in lieu of
such fractional  share, an amount in cash (the  "Cash-in-Lieu  Amount") equal to
the  product of (i) the  fractional  share  which a holder  would  otherwise  be
entitled to,  multiplied by (ii) the average of the last sale price per share of
the Old Common Stock on the 20 trading days  immediately  prior to the Effective
Date or, if no such sale takes  place on such days,  the  average of the closing
bid and asked prices thereof for such days, in each case as officially  reported
on the NASDAQ National Market.  No interest shall be payable on the Cash-in-Lieu
Amount."
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 167 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen Educators at the National 

Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2017 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen Educators at 

the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Memorial to 

5 Fallen Educators Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) from 1764 to the date of enactment of this 

9 Act, more than 119 educators from 36 States have 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 167 IS

1 lost their lives in the United States while performing 

2 professional duties; 

3 (2) the United States lacks a national memorial 

4 dedicated to fallen educators; and 

5 (3) a memorial to fallen educators at the Na6 tional Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas— 

7 (A) was dedicated on June 12, 2014; and 

8 (B) will honor educators who have lost 

9 their lives in the line of professional service. 

10 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—The memorial to fallen educators 

12 located at the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Empo13 ria, Kansas, is designated as the ‘‘National Memorial to 

14 Fallen Educators’’. 

15 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo16 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

17 Park System and the designation of the National Memo18 rial to Fallen Educators shall not require or permit Fed19 eral funds to be expended for any purpose related to that 

20 national memorial. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03749**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 03749\03749_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03749\03749_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 03749\03749_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03749\03749_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03749\03749_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03749\Certification Statement Plant ID 03749.pdf Plant certification statement x 03749\Supporting Documentation\03749_Seminole Areial.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03749\Supporting Documentation\03749_Seminole Pl.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03749\Supporting Documentation\03749_SEwaterbalance2007.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. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### GILLETTE MOTOR TRANSPORT, Inc., v. KELLY.

No. 2243.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 6, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1940.

Geppert, Geppert & Victery, of Teague, for appellant.

Williford, Williford & Bond, of Fair-field, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This is a suit for damages for injuries to a mule alleged to have been struck by the defendant’s automobile truck. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and defendant has appealed.

 The only material question is the sufficiency of the evidence to show liability. The defendant failed to introduce any evidence in its behalf. We must therefore look exclusively to the plaintiff’s evidence to support the verdict. The evidence shows that plaintiff’s mule broke out of his pasture some time during the night and on the next morning was found beside the highway with his hind leg broken. A witness who lived near the highway testified that he heard an animal running south down the highway some time between the hours of two and four o’clock A. M. He heard a sound like an automobile had hit the animal. The automobile, or other vehicle, which was going in the same direction as the animal, backed up to the scene of the accident and then went on down the road. Another witness-testified that on the same day, between three and five o’clock A. M., defendant’s agent drove the defendant’s truck in *to*witness’ filling station, about 11⁄2 miles south of the scene of the accident, and announced that he had hit a mule a short distance out on the highway and wanted to use the telephone. The right light, fender and radiator guard on the truck had been smashed in. The driver of the truck telephoned to defendant’s office at Dallas *960for a man to come out and repair the truck. The statements of the driver of the truck were made in the course of his employment, apparently within two or three minutes after- the accident, and were therefore admissible. The evidence above set out was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the defendant’s truck had struck plaintiff’s mule. Other witnesses testified that they had found blood and other evidence on the ground, showing that the mule had been struck while it was on the shoulder of the road on the truck’s right-hand side of the road. The mule tracks showed that it had run along the shoulder of the road in the direction in which the truck was traveling for a distance of about ISO yards before being struck. There were tracks at the same place showing that the dual wheels of a truck had got off the'pavement onto the right-hand shoulder of the road at or near the scene of the accident. These circumstances, when viewed in the light of the failure of the defendant to introduce any evidence in its behalf, were sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the defendant’s driver had negligently failed to keep a proper lookout for the mule. Glazer v. Woodward, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 938, par. 2. We think the evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System	

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE	

Washington,	DC	20590	

05/05/2015

Re:	Amendment	to	Exemption	11240	issued	pursuant	to	Section	333	of	the	FAA	

Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket	

No.	FAA-2014-0353-0001.	

Dear	Sir	or	Madam;	

Aerius	Flight	LLC,	was	issued	an	Exemption	numbered	11240	(hereinafter	

the	Exemption)	for	the	purpose	of	commercial	aerial	survey	and	photography	

operations.	Aerius	Flight	LLC,	herby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	

allow	an	additional	type	of	unmanned	aircraft	system	(UAS)	that	fully	complies	

with	the	conditions	of	the	Exemption.	

Aerius	Flight	LLC, wishes	to	operate	a	DYS	D800-X8 under	the	same	terms	

and	conditions	contained	in	the	Exemption.	Attached	hereto,	and	submitted	as	a	

confidential	document,	is	the	Flight	Operations	Manual	(FOM)	for	the	additional	

UASs.	All	operations	of	the	additional	UASs	will	be	in	full	compliance	with	the	

terms	of	the	Exemption.	

As	this	is	an	amendment	to	an	existing	exemption	asking	for	only	the	

addition	of	another	type	of	unmanned	aerial	vehicle,	Aerius	Flight	LLC	respectfully	

submits	that	good	cause	exists	so	that	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	to	the	Exemption.	

Regards,	

Kenneth	Beason

CEO,	Aerius	Flight	LLC

kbeason@aeriusflight.com

1	(248)	767-9092

CC:

James	Williams	

Robert	Pappas	

Jake	Troutman	

John	McGraw	

Jonathan	B.	Hill
#### SECURITY-FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOS ANGELES, a Corporation, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 9567.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 15, 1940.

Newlin & Ashburn and A. W. Ash-burn, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Wm. Fleet Palmer, U. S. Atty., E. H. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Armond Monroe Jewell, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Eugene Harpole Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue all of Los Angeles, Cal., and C. L. Christie Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal herein, 29 F. Supp. 734, dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court in this cause issued forthwith.
#### Weil, Admx., Appellee, *v.*Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc., Appellant. 

(No. 28663

Decided June 11, 1941.)

*Mr. B. Wm. Heidkamp*and *Mr. Arthur Shott,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Freiberg & Simmonds,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.