alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005093EN.01004101.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/41

---

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-82/05)

(2005/C 93/74)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the memorandum of 8 December 2004, D(2004) 12075 concerning: payments by the Commission differing from the sum requested in respect of Programme P.E.P. Campania, request for payment number 2004 2245, in so far as the European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional Policy – intervention in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Hungary and the Netherlands, has communicated the following decision: ‘as stated in letter No 0037474 of 25 November of the Ministry of the Economy, the sum of EUR 1 994 835 has not been accepted as valid in relation to measure 4.2, so far as it relates to advances on schemes of aid granted after 19 February 2003 or the notice of which was closed after that date, which have not been used by the final recipient in order to pay actual expenses’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the memorandum of 8 December 2004, D(2004) 12075 concerning: payments by the Commission differing from the sum requested in respect of Programme P.E.P. Campania, request for payment number 2004 2245, in so far as the European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional Policy – intervention in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Hungary and the Netherlands, has communicated the following decision: ‘as stated in letter No 0037474 of 25 November of the Ministry of the Economy, the sum of EUR 1 994 835 has not been accepted as valid in relation to measure 4.2, so far as it relates to advances on schemes of aid granted after 19 February 2003 or the notice of which was closed after that date, which have not been used by the final recipient in order to pay actual expenses’;

as stated in letter No 0037474 of 25 November of the Ministry of the Economy, the sum of EUR 1 994 835 has not been accepted as valid in relation to measure 4.2, so far as it relates to advances on schemes of aid granted after 19 February 2003 or the notice of which was closed after that date, which have not been used by the final recipient in order to pay actual expenses

| — | annul all connected and contingent acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all connected and contingent acts;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
   (1).

Italian Republic

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJEU C 262 of 23 October 2004, p. 55.

1

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2015

Open Channel (582)

C.1 (+) Water quality 

(long-term)

Initial setting: Where additional 

discharge capacity is required for flood 

prevention, drainage, or other 

authorized water management purpose.

I.8 (+/-) 

Cropland/

wetland 

benefits

Excavated, stabilized natural or 

artificial channel 

D.2 (-) 

Streambank 

erosion

D.4 (+/-) Stream 

flow fluctuations

(dependent on 

management)

D.6 (+/-) 

Acres of 

cropland/ 

wetland

D.5 (+/-) Fish 

and wildlife 

habitat 

fragmentation 

C.3 (+/-) 

Recreational 

opportunities

I.6 (+/-) Aquatic 

habitats

I.3 (-) 

Sedimentation

C.4 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and

community)

C.2 (+/-) Fish 

and wildlife 

habitat

D.3 (-) 

Flooding 

and 

ponding

I.4 (-) 

Downstream 

maintenance 

costs

I.5 (+) Water delivery 

downstream

D.7 (+) Cost of 

installation, 

operation, and 

maintenance

I.7 (+/-) Fish 

passage

I.9 (+/-) Net 

return

I.1 (+) Retention 

of agrichemicals 

onsite

I.2 (-) Offsite 

transport of 

agrichemicals

D.1 (+) Potential to 

create a closed 

agricultural system

C.5 (+/-) Environmental quality

Start

UNotesU:

Effects are qualified with a 

plus (+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease 

(-) in the effect of the 

resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or 

adverse.

Pathway

LEGEND

#. Created by 

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130647 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: 130647 

 COA: 258796 

Wayne CC: 04-001318-01 

MANSA CARVIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 10, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1865

Lower Tribunal No. 17-11486CC

________________

Health and Wellness Evolution Co. a/a/o Earl Esperon,

Appellant,

vs.

Infinity Auto Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Elijah A. 

Levitt, Judge.

Douglas H. Stein, P.A. and Douglas H. Stein, for appellant.

Gladys Perez Villanueva, and Law Offices of Terry M. Torres & 

Associates, and David A. Villarreal, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

MILLER, J.
2

Appellant, Health and Wellness Evolution Company (“HWE”), as the 

assignee of Earl Esperon, challenges a final judgment rendered in favor of 

appellee, Infinity Auto Insurance Company (“Infinity”), following a jury trial. 

On appeal, HWE contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Infinity failed to present 

competent, substantial evidence establishing the insured was properly 

noticed for an examination under oath. We affirm and write only to reiterate 

two longstanding evidentiary principles. The first is that documents received 

and relied upon in the regular course of business may become the business 

records of the receiving party so long as they carry adequate indicia of 

reliability. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022); Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 

v. Gundersen, 204 So. 3d 530, 533–34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The second is 

that “‘it is not necessary to call the person who actually prepared the 

document’ in order to lay the foundation for the business records exception 

to the hearsay rule.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla., 

PL., 345 So. 3d 952, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting United Auto. Ins. Co.

v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc.,43 So. 3d 127, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)). 

Instead, “[t]he record custodian or any qualified witness who has the requisite 

knowledge to testify as to how the record was made can lay the necessary 

foundation.” Mann v. State, 787 So. 2d 130, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
3

Consistent with these principles, the records custodian testimony presented 

by the insurer in this case sufficiently established that both the challenged 

letter of representation and examination under oath notices qualified for 

admission under the business records exception. Accordingly, whether the 

letters provided Esperon with adequate notice evolved into a factual question 

properly resolved by the jury. See Comprehensive Health Ctr., Inc. v. United 

Auto. Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[N]otice to the attorney 

constitutes notice to the client.”); see also Gracia v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 347 

So. 3d 479, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“[C]redibility determinations and 

weighing the evidence are jury functions . . . .”) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). 

We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20658

In the Matter of: 

DAVID ORLANDO COLLINS,

Debtor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WELLS FARGO BANK,

Appellant,

versus

DAVID ORLANDO COLLINS,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(09-CV-2483)

Before SMITH, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wells Fargo Bank argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees for the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-20658 Document: 00511571846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
No. 10-20658

expenses it incurred while filing a proof of claim to correct the amount it was

owed as part of the chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding of its debtor, David Collins. Collins owed approximately $100,000 to the bank under a promissory note

dated March 1, 2001. The note was secured by a deed of trust that was executed

the same day and gave the bank a lien on the house Collins purchased with the

loan. The deed of trust also obligated Collins to “pay when due the principal of,

and interest on, the debt evidenced by the Note.” 

After missing ten monthly payments, Collins filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court approved his confirmation plan, including a provision for ongoing mortgage payments to the bank while the bankruptcy

case was pending. Consistently with the plan, Collins submitted a proof of claim

evidencing the amount he owed the bank under the note. The bank thought Collins had understated the amount owed, however, so, it hired an attorney to prepare its own proof of claim in the correct amount. It submitted an application

for the attorneys’ fees it incurred to prepare the proof of claim, citing a provision

of the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court rejected the fee application, and the

district court affirmed. Each of those courts issued a detailed opinion explaining

its reasons. See In re Collins, No. 07-38246, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1554 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex. June 8, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Collins, No.

H:09-2483, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85195 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2010).

Under these limited and specific facts, we affirm for want of reversible

error. We express no view on the various holdings and observations of the bankruptcy and district courts. We also observe that this is essentially a matter of

contract interpretation and that any unresolved issues can be fixed in subsequent contracts.

The judgment of the district court, affirming the order of the bankruptcy

court, is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-20658 Document: 00511571846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
•••••

• •

1St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. sualummeme

THE NRO STAFF September 20, 1972

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL BRADBURX

SUBJECT: ' to SAFSP Concernin

Background 

In response to the DDR6E and Assistant Secretary of

Dcf morandum, the NRO is examining

tions for inclusion in the review

be chaired by Herbert Beningten,

Deputy DDR6E. On September 15, 1972, SAFSP and Aerospace,

at your request (Tab A), briefe ce, and NRO

principals on prior SP work in well as

specific satellite system opti the last

ths. As an outgrowth of that meeting, Colonel

FSP, has provided a message outlining what he is

as input by October 16, 1972 (Tab B).

Discussion 

The message (Tab B) outlines what SAFSP is to furnish:

Budgetary estimates, development sch

and operational concepts for their p resently define

A qualitative value assessment of the systems

above for General Surveillance, SALT Monitoring, Crisis

Management, Battlefield Surveillance, and Ocean Surveillance.

.'P als wo ld like to comment on several of the related

hich they have expertise.

The proposed answer on the right:

TOPSECRET

Inmet2 rear alrOVV.: Itoloor•••

003 DO ► INI I co ID 00fi arm •

COMM. NO

COri, Or Carus

Plat Of
1. Concurs Concurs with their message (Tab B).

hey will be undertaking. The

purpose of this is to logically treat the available' oak

system alternatives in one place so that relative feiiibility,

costs, and values can be compared.

3. Also requests copies of the September 15

briefing material for our reference and use.

Recommendation 

Sign and release message on right.

cowman so

COPY Of COPIES

POOg

e, tat DDDDD .ROM •t10011fIC RI moot, eaOLS

ao: INOECTiff is *o 00r, mOT n PlotT
(0.•

TOP SECRET -CORONSITDEALISTDEPARTMENTOPTHEAIRFORCZ

WASHINGTON

OM= OF TUC UNDER SICIIX•et 1 7 4.PP

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, NPIC

THE DIRECTOR, DIA (SAO)

SUBJECT: The 112-B Camera System

REFS: a. Memorandum For Director, NPIC, DIA (SAO),

Subject, Announcement of the 112 Camera

System, dated 14 October 1963 93-63,

with attached booklet.

112-A Camera System, NPIC -TP -24/63, dated

October 1963.

Message from NPIC to DIA (S80), Cite NPIC 1652

dated 2 January 1964 (S).

d. Memorandum For Director, NPIC, DIA (SAO),

Subject, Announcement of the Camera

System, dated 10 March 1964, 2564-64.

The 112-B Camera System has been developed by Program "B"

of the S(NRO) to increase the collection capability of the 112-A.

Both these systems are designed for use in a Lockheed U-2.

The primary difference between the two systems is that the

112-B system has incorporated two cameras in a convergent mount,

with a total convergence angle of 260 . The two cameras are

similar to the single panoramic camera in the 112-A.

Because the system will probably be flown over areas where

the photography from such operations is classified SECRET, it

was necessary to classify the inclosed camera data SECRET. The

data have been carefully prepared to exclude information which

might compromise factors relating to the covert procurement or

prior usage of the camera.

It is most important that this data be released on a strict

need.-to-know basis, as determined by your office. All information

MILE VIA cyan

=ROL SYSTEM TOP SECRET

Corp-7f 5f 7 Copies .

Pogo / of egos.

Control No.jaze.
CORONA/IDEALIST

on this collection system other than that contained herein

or that which subsequently may be approved by this office

for release from operational sources, will remain in the

separate CORONA or IDEALIST systems.

Attachment JOHN L. MARTIN, JR.

Brigadier General, USAF

(8) Director NRO Staff

HANDLE VIA

2

TOP SECRET

Copy-r1 1* Copies

Page, of 0-** Pages., i; ...

Control lo. a
. • • •• • • • • •• • •

:

•

• ;, • : • •

' • .•

. .

•

. . •••• •

. ". • (0101

yae.

.0Y-1044v4ier

wmod 4uoier.

•

. ••• r

. .

. •

•

• 4

:;

.1

!

•

?. • •• .• :" •". %• • 144.-50. - •

..•

T

•

• •ef• r: •• •••• • 

.• .'. • • • • . • .:.i...."7,...;•••••,"

p
• r?'

. •••••

..1••• • •

. • Z .

"".4". 1.1.1.;, *7-114.-••

;

•

• •

▪

-

▪

• . •: . " • • ;.: ••••:•' !.

4.; '—•1•4 ••or

▪

!‘•:•4•1h. •••• • • •••• • 214F.. ti.44:071.

*:t

Ate ...AA:66

ii-outote. 61".4/$•:et

A- &ma Ex

endlautkut

, taw"( • 'I: •%,

it

/ X

.

•

,

:.:,,ti

. 8.- • ' •

• • • l •

;••

.

.

.„.

•

3.

.

•

• 4. •• .4,10

• •

•• • 'I.!.

•• •'. ••

.• • ' ".2 , .

•

:(7:5?„

• *. • tif •

.• •

•••

.

*.' T ..• j 1:*:; • •

. , • 1, •• ., .4...". . .

' . • • : . • in/ •••'''• •

••• . . >ft

•

••••. • t

••••• •

Lr 1. • •

••• ';'• .Ye "••••

. •

•

"•• • P•k

. •. ".7.; .*: •

•

• ' • • • •,,4•44; •• ,ttli

' •

" • •

4". ".. ....

• ••:• .• •

.•17

: . • .

.. •
- ATA811. P1-

iiii

t2 1142W Mr CS61 ;05 -

i'll VOZ,./ ": SSS Zttl

271920Z

74 701

6090912

IMO

UM SIM

00"

r4.,,111 • .

TCOZ mat 74 C111111166.

:034:1

R :"SO STATED THAT CUMEOT ELUIPMEgT A:2D SUPPLY.

SIPPO,T CPID-A WCULDBE =TAILED AaLTHAT w SITE

LOD TrmacAL REPUEEMATIOI VCULD 9E DISCONTINUED.

PRCVIZED BY BCD ;:J"RE:EOTATIVEC

GP.:I.ATLY A.7.;ISTE, NIV.32APTIa I: ►NTAINING ftICH C114.1 ' TY

XITITE DliCZTACES. VrE. 

PFEEEJT DCO SUPPTI MAD a. =TAILED, Air DISMIL:ZD. •rrir:TIC.. CF 50 FrFgEAT CliREEST SUPPER?

WILD MY ALLEVII;IE 234;:3 (MUSIC:: PHCIC TECHNICAM

SZITAc..1.1 Al.D VSUEE Tli•t rEPSOKiia. AM KEPT

aPiaia PHOTCGRAPHIC DIVELCPra FRall

•

EWE "611111111110 0.1.1::FMC CATI•14 ACTIC11 IS PEZDING FACAF

TEXMEST THAT r. C PSIZENT ;IA:Laac BE ASSIENED AGAINST

PIOC=CINC/EXPLOITATICii AtillMaZATIOKS TO VISLZE

231ATE: RESPMEE TO ::ATIClt.L IALZUC. TY,E WMDRIXAL

CF `.•3) TrD'HEMITAITJEE • : '7 1.; InCREASE IIl 234X0

Wane ALL STrEICH '4MWECM.

2. NOM OF VECI LOGIC iCS AZ VESTED ThTIU

THE OPIC 303) FC:1 RELATIVELY DEXPENSIVE BUT

CRITICALLY N: FD NICHI::::JELUIR.E1:1 PARTS PRMIDED BY DO)

tt.r..t...Taiva max:: TO TEE MSPCWIVEHEW OF

SUPPOET :-:FS 3mil ECCELL:a Aga IS IMES= . ►1Ly

errwxY CAM. :ICZialliD THAT SPECIALIZED PARTE/L-LiPPLIES

SJPPOIT 3E RETAIHED AS C -r FRCVIDa). THIS IS A

G:=DIaATED PAW= Ag E-2 MET

a

•

4
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 22 January 1973

IV-SECRETAISSANCE OFFICE

mamMErsis D

SENSITIVE INTELL

AND METHODS INVO

cAssmIED EvFT MOM

GENERAL SCHEDI'LE

EXECUTIVE ORDER !1St EXEMFT.004 CA:E•

GORY 5C2 DECI.ASSM ON W.? DEL

-TOP-SECRETMEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

SUBJECT: National Reconnaissance Program Briefing

During the past twelve years, the efforts of the National

Reconnaissance Office have been directed toward developing and

operating a variety of covert satellite intelligence collection

systems bearing on strategic issues of national interest.

Recent significant advances in the state of the art have made

possible satellite reconnaissance systems as sources of nearreal-time (NRT) intelligence images with potential tactical

applications.

I am sure this possibility, together with the potential

available to the Army through the utilization of space technology, is being examined in your space-related research and

development programs. Nevertheless, it occurs to me that this

might be a good time to update you, your new Chief of Staff,'

and his principal assistants. An overview of the National

Reconnaissance Program with particular emphasis on the NRT

imaging, which is due to become operational in 1976, would

add the perspective necessary to insure the coordinated effort

essential to development of tactical requirements.

My Staff is prepared to brief you, General Abrams, and

his principal staff officers at your convenience. For initial

planning purposes, a briefing in mid-February is suggested.

Colonel John Kulpa, Director of the NRO Staff, will be pleased

to work out the details with your point of contact.
versation of 11 August roferr_.!

CZ AT contractor on CnCZA, ,,A

relatod thereto.

1.‘

0

Cttcber 5, 161,

.

I

..:LZ:..7411M.II..". ral SE47.1=Arr irtriC3 .

.,:r4 • • . -

- •

notes on our meetings of 1 Deptem%ar and 10 So2tember oovar several points heering on COZ3U1 

aalc•.. I have contracting, az. outlined no CIA memoranda relating to those meetings.

,4.C.04.tir

It %cep

onLy to t4.: usa of

o::4 to the. contra

• uada e long otetement of hie pcoition .7.1C vas :fact the not properly organizcd, citing his 

to .7.c..-.,oren4- on Er. McGeorge :undy and to Er .. re that it is wrong to permit one agency so :influence

ternel management of another and that :amply task the therefore the ...Gt"-7

not run its • zked internal affairs. Es that no furthor chanue be intro 

tract otructure until t1113 major :hums! into the CC7W.1 con-

,

 issue is settled.. (Something of c no:.-aequitur, in my view).

Az I remember it, you spoke immediately upon

'.1.11 conclusion, right, John, we 

zhst thin% it is wrong, but if :,%-u want

way we can run it that i:7." I supported thic letter

hovv.

..:sr recounting all t':.e good manam7;cnent =aeons I: ..:. it -..7ronj 

at '...aeat tac c;z: 

to operato in tIsie I cloo:_.:". Eith a plea

oz::..cor on G ene ra l Creer!s staff. 

contracts 1)3 administered 

• by a contracting 7.17 •.1...lone aEraad. .

•

•

C. 

tat the cl&::.e oZ the meeting, Liked again whether ve heve tee CI:. contracts adminisred Zrom ut-1.6:7.7 Ceaaral Grear. Nr. ::CCone the lest Coast, tz :-.-.,fn '11 agreed end said we "could the peo2le we needed - ong!

....Jaze too."

• •
1

e • O

L.-

• it was tacitly my view that tlic CIA contractsunder dscriss;.on were those with IT::, Uastuan, Electric , as rairchild, end Geasral well as the Locaheod contract for the payload. com fabrication of partment. I hrus tried - always 

on 11 August • to wake - and I believe

a package out GE(i) mITD, (II) e

instllin

Gina el G

stablishing a ENSC systems intwrasati gm reer,.(iii) adding clauses to all other contracts to reflect (i).

2111.2tEtkIE

XcCone said that he had decided ran, Crawley, to Grcer's to assign a nov CIA

act:Nities on cmozA: staffto be responsiUe for all CIjl . contractinz, security, end technical Le vould have CL contractinz and security people with him

.

Crowley was identified as an ent3ineer fornetly.with

In our presence, Mt. NaCene directed Genarza Cart= • tcr.c1 ram a wt to • .:ma:anti= to this effect. It was thatys. would form a technical advisory committee to Greer, with 

rexesentaticn, replacing the defunct C. CI&

ta%ca 

You tttsu 

to accommdate to this 

direel;.te to tal,:ort bneg. on the nao actions new arrawsement. So far, I have scan no CIA corwespondence of actions on the natter, 

ponangly have tea= no actIon and.corresPf=lnEt:4041_1;7;c4.1

• This is also a plea: let u.; nut az.-ree to foul up this inrossiLle MOC3 any further by havisz SIV Locah:led T40 under Greer and systemslategration under C14. •

/Si •

Zrockway

:

2