alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SHANNON DERON WILLIAMS, ) DOC #378222, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3355 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 20, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### ELAM v. TUBRE et al.

No. 2273.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Oct. 13, 1932.

A. L. Shaw and B. E. Moore, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

Chas. S. Pipkin, of Beaumont, for appel-lees.

LAWHON, J.

Appellant, W. E. Elam, brought suit in the trial court to recover of C. M. Tubre and T. E. Danziger the value of certain services he alleged he performed for them in building or repairing a house on lot 8, block 20, of the Cartwright addition to the city of Beaumont. He also sought to foreclose a lien on this property against the defendants Tubre and Dan-ziger and Home Building & Loan Company. The case was tried by the court, and judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing as against the defendants. Plaintiff filed motion for new trial, which was overruled on December 19, 1931, and he excepted and gave notice of appeal. On the same date he requested the court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appeal was perfected by filing an affidavit of inability to pay costs in lieu of an appeal bond. • A transcript has been filed in this court, but it was not accompanied by a statement of facts.

Appellant seeks to have the judgment of the trial court reversed solely on the ground that the trial judge did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law, as requested. The transcript does not show that appellant called to the attention of the trial court his failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by article 2247, Revised Civil Statutes, as amended by the Forty-Second Legislature, 1931, c. 76 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2247) which reads as follows: “When demand is made therefor, the Judge of a District or County Court thirty days before the time for filing transcript in the cause shall prepare his findings of fact and conclusions of law in any case tried before the Court. If he shall fail so to prepare them, the party so demanding, in order to complain of the failure, shall, in writing, within five days after such period, call the omission to the attention of the Judge, whereupon the period for due preparation and filing shall be automatically extended for five days after such notification.”

Appellant cannot complain of the action of the trial court without showing that he complied with this article of the statutes. The cases cited in appellant’s brief were decided before article 2247 was amended.

No other complaint being made in the brief, to the judgment, it is affirmed.
#### MAUL v. WILLIAMS et al.

Motion No. 11619; No. 1748—6214.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Jan. 30, 1935.

Henry E. Vernor and Marcus W. Davis, both of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

A. L. Matlock, Ben H. Kelly, and J. R. Cade, all of San Antonio, for defendants in error.

CRITZ, Commissioner.

This case was appealed from the district court of Bexar county, Tex., by C. F. Maul. Margaret Williams et al. were appellees in the Court of Civil Appeals. They are -defendants in error here. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed ’this case and did not pass on its merits. Maul prosecuted writ of error to this court. The writ was granted and on final hearing in this court the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was reversed and the cause remanded to that court. Under such a record 'the costs in this case should have been adjudged against the defendants in error. The adjudication of all other costs should have been left to the Court of Civil Appeals.

The motion to retax costs filed herein by O. F. Maul is granted, and the costs retaxqd as above indicated.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2010-0380; Dir. ID 2009-NM-009-AD. 
See Grid
#### BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 16885.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1934.

J. A. Bulloch and Alex P. Pope, both of Tyler, for appellant.

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

*279CHRISTIAN, Judge.

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

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
##### 



Retail Ventures, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Year Ended2/3/07
    
    
    1/28/06
    
    
    1/29/05
    
    
    1/31/04
    
    
    2/1/03EarningsLoss before income taxes, minority
interest and equity earnings
    
    $
    (112,117
    )
    
    $
    (163,192
    )
    
    $
    (31,876
    )
    
    $
    (6,937
    )
    
    $
    (2,682
    )Fixed charges (as below)
    
    
    80,825
    
    
    
    80,288
    
    
    
    87,277
    
    
    
    81,299
    
    
    
    80,541Total (loss) earnings
    
    $
    (31,292
    )
    
    $
    (82,904
    )
    
    $
    55,401
    
    
    $
    74,362
    
    
    $
    77,859Fixed ChargesInterest expense
    
    $
    27,217
    
    
    $
    27,861
    
    
    $
    39,206
    
    
    $
    38,714
    
    
    $
    39,690Estimated interest element in minimum rent
expense (6)
    
    
    53,608
    
    
    
    52,427
    
    
    
    48,071
    
    
    
    42,585
    
    
    
    40,851Total fixed charges
    
    $
    80,825
    
    
    $
    80,288
    
    
    $
    87,277
    
    
    $
    81,299
    
    
    $
    80,541Ratio of (loss) earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    (0.39
    ) (1)
    
    
    (1.03
    ) (2)
    
    
    0.63
    (3)
    
    
    0.91
    (4)
    
    
    0.97
    (5)
 
 (1)
    
    For the year ended February 3, 2007 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $112,117,000.(2)
    
    For the year ended January 28, 2006 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $163,192,000.(3)
    
    For the year ended January 29, 2005 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $31,876,000.(4)
    
    For the year ended January 31, 2004 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $6,937,000.(5)
    
    For the year ended February 1, 2003 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $2,682,000.(6)
    
    Interest component is estimated to be one-third of minimum rent expense.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31495]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1132]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Coastal Fuels Marketing, 
Inc. (Petroleum Products Storage Facility), Port Everglades, Florida

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Port Everglades Department of 
Broward County, Florida, grantee of FTZ 25, for authority to establish 
special-purpose subzone status at the petroleum products storage 
facility of Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc. (Coastal) in Port Everglades, 
Florida, was filed by the Board on March 15, 2000, and notice inviting 
public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 9-2000, 65 
FR 15304, 3/22/00); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 25C) at the petroleum products storage facility of 
Coastal Fuels Marketing Inc., in Port Everglades, Florida, at the 
location described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of November 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 00-31495 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31064]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Small Business Investment Companies; Increase in Maximum Leverage 
Ceiling

    13 CFR 107.1150(a) sets forth the maximum amount of Leverage (as 
defined in 13 CFR 107.50) that a Small Business Investment Company may 
have outstanding at any time. The maximum Leverage amounts are adjusted 
annually based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The cited regulation states that SBA 
will publish the indexed maximum Leverage amounts each year in a Notice 
in the Federal Register.
    Accordingly, effective the date of publication of this Notice, and 
until further notice, the maximum Leverage amounts under 13 CFR 
107.1150(a) are as stated in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If your Leverageable Capital is:      Then your maximum Leverage is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Not over $18,100,000...............  300 percent of Leverageable
                                          Capital
(2) Over $18,100,000 but not over        54,300,000 + [2  x
 $36,300,000.                             (Leverageable Capital--
                                          $18,100,000)]
(3) Over $36,300,000 but not over        $90,700,000 + (Leverageable
 $54,400,000.                             Capital--$36,300,000)
(4) Over $54,400,000...................  $108,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, small 
business investment companies)

    Dated: November 30, 2000.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 00-31064 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James A. McGrady, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedJanuary 29, 2005 of Retail Ventures, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  [Reserved]  c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Dated: April 14, 2005         By:   /s/ James A. McGrady    James A. McGrady, Executive VicePresident,   Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3125

___________

Anthony P. Lane, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2008

Filed: May 30, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony P. Lane appeals the district court’s1

 order

denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We find no abuse of discretion. See

Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there is no statutory

or constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil case; discussing factors).

However, it appears from documents Lane filed near the time of the August 2007
-2-

order at issue, and from his filings in this court, that his mental status has changed and

that he and the district court might now benefit from the appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, we affirm but we clarify that the district court’s order is without

prejudice to Lane’s right to renew his request for counsel as the case progresses. See

Nelson v. Shuffman, 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1184 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1184

           To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2009

 Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone.

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

SECTION 1. CYCLOPENTANONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.34.41       Cyclopentanone      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (CAS No. 120-92-                                                   31/2012.......
                          3) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2914.29.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.1

Cephalon, Inc.  Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges(In thousands)

Year Ended December 31,As adjusted
2005*

As adjusted
2006*

As adjusted
2007*

As adjusted
2008*

2009Determination of earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes

$
(264,506
)
$
192,166

$
(123,276
)
$
134,070

$
281,945Add:Amortization of interest capitalized in current or prior periods





52


98


250


265Fixed charges


81,007


97,054


79,993


84,762


99,453Total earnings

$
(183,499
)
$
289,272

$
(43,185
)
$
219,082

$
381,663Fixed charges:Interest expense and amortization of debt discount and premium on all indebtedness


75,257


87,805


70,866


75,233


90,336Appropriate portion of rentals


5,750


9,249


9,127


9,529


9,117Fixed charges


81,007


97,054


79,993


84,762


99,453Capitalized interest


1,044


1,766


768


77


Total fixed charges

$
82,051

$
98,820

$
80,761

$
84,839

$
99,453Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)





2.93





2.58


3.84Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges


265,550





123,946








*As
adjusted in accordance with the transition provisions of accounting for convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion (including
partial cash settlement).(1)For
the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2007, no ratios are provided because earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges.


---



QuickLinks
#### HOLLOWAY v. STATE.

No. 17070.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1934.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Burglary is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

*104There is before this court the affidavit of the sheriff of Bowie county, to the effect that on the 13th of August, 1934, the appellant escaped from the jail of said county and is still at large. Under the provisions of article 824, C. O. P., as amended by Acts of 1933, c. 34 (Vernon’s Ann. O. O. P. art. 824), and article 825, such escape deprives this court of jurisdiction of the appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1995-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement  of
operations contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         675,525
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  356,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,032,086
<PP&E>                                         2,572,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (815,335)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,789,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          259,475
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,529,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,789,050
<SALES>                                        146,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,848
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  81,787<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                57,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            57,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   57,241
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 6, 2011

d0829 

# Order

September 6, 2011

141768-9(50)

MARY CIPRIANO, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 141768-9 COA: 291377, 292806 Macomb CC: 91-004641-DO SALVATORE CIPRIANO, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 6, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.