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 

RAYMOND M. SHULSTAD, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-941 

 ) 

MITZI A. SHULSTAD, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 25, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Ashley B. Moody, 

Judge. 

 

Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant. 

Bradley J. McDonald and Matthew E. 

Thatcher of The Solomon Law Group, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellee. 

 

 

LaROSE, Judge. 

 Raymond Shulstad appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. 

He raises four issues; we affirm, without further discussion, as to three. We write to 

address his last issue: that the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Shulstad to maintain 

$750,000 in life insurance coverage to secure his postdissolution support obligations. 

Mitzi Shulstad properly concedes that the trial court erred in ordering an increase in Mr. 
- 2 - 

Shulstad's life insurance coverage. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on 

this issue. 

 The trial court may require a party to secure child support and alimony 

payments with life insurance coverage. However, "the record should contain evidence 

of the payor's insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance, and the payor's ability to 

afford the insurance." Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); 

Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that "there must be 

evidence in the record and findings by the court as to the cost of the insurance being 

required in order to establish that the obligor can obtain and afford such insurance 

coverage"). 

 The trial court had evidence before it about the cost and ability of Mr. 

Shulstad to maintain his then-current $500,000 life insurance policy. The trial court had 

no evidence of the cost to increase and Mr. Shulstad's ability to pay for coverage of 

$750,000. 

 Under the facts of the present case, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by requiring that the former husband maintain a 

life insurance policy to secure the alimony awarded to the former 

wife. However, the amount of the coverage which the former 

husband was ordered to maintain lacks a sufficient evidentiary 

basis—the record contains no evidence of the . . . cost of the 

proposed insurance, and, thus, the former husband's ability to pay 

that unspecified cost. 

Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Lopez, 780 So. 

2d at 164). 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. 

VILLANTI, C.J., and KHOUZAM, J., Concur.
Leroy LUCAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6343.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MAYNARD F. GAMBER 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 88 

DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Maynard F. Gamber 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 88 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Maynard F. Gamber has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) and 

the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 CFR, 

Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and 

the said Maynard F. Gamber is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering 

into a stipulation of compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, the said 

Maynard F. Gamber stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Maynard F. Gamber an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was on August 13, 1965, a member 

of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market 

under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(2) On August 13, 1965, Maynard F. Gamber executed 55 transactions in 

regulated commodity futures on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. 

However, with respect to 54 of such transactions, in each instance he failed to 

prepare a trading card or other record 

clearly identifying the opposite floor broker or other trader with whom such 

transaction was executed. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Maynard F. Gamber that his failure 

to keep full and complete records of futures transactions, as described above, 

was in violation of section 4g of the Commodity Exchange Act and section 1.35 of 

the regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said Maynard F. Gamber agrees to desist from such acts and practices in 

the future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon acts or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 

5 day of October 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 1, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                               7,206
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          210
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (86)
<INVENTORY>                                            449
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     8,093
<PP&E>                                                 618
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (352)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       8,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,873
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                10
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         8,702
<SALES>                                              1,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,410
<CGS>                                                1,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (50)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (789)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (789)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (130)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (919)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.19)



</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2713EA

_____________ Fred DuVall, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Mike Bridges, in his individual capacity * and as Sheriff of Van Buren County, * Arkansas; Stephen E. James, in his * individual capacity and as Deputy * Appeal from the United States Prosecuting Attorney for Van Buren * District Court for the Eastern County, Arkansas; County of Van * District of Arkansas. Buren, Arkansas; * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants-Appellees, * * Larry E. Kuykendall, doing business as * Kuykendall Cement Co.; * * Defendant, * * State of Arkansas, * * Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: December 7, 1998

Filed: December 10, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.-2- _____________ PER CURIAM. Fred DuVall appeals the di strict court's dismissal of DuVall's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 laws uit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the district court proper ly dismissed DuVall's action. We thus affirm the district court. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Office of the 

Inspector General 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

Facsimile: (202) 418-5521 

www.cftc.gov 

MEMORANDUM 

Timothy G. Massad, Chairman, 

Commissioner Mark P. Wetjen, 

Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen, 

Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo 

A. Roy Lavik, Inspector GeneralQ D '-£ 

March 2, 2015 

OIG Risk Assessment of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC) Purchase Card and Convenience Check Program 

The Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of2012 (P.L. No. 112-194) 

requires the Inspector General to repmi to the head of the agency the results of analyses or 

audits of the agency's purchase card or convenience check programs, to conduct periodic 

assessments, and to conduct analyses and audits as necessary. 

During Fiscal Year 2014, CFTC noted $2,841,665 in charges on twenty-eight 

purchase cards issued to CFTC staff. Over the same period approximately $1 03,720 in 

expenses were paid by convenience checks. During this period, the OIG received no 

allegations regarding purchase cards or convenience checks. During this period, my Office 

also repmied to Chairman Massad 1 that nothing had come to its attention that would warrant 

the OIG to conclude that the Management Control Reviews performed by the agency on its 

purchase card and convenience check programs were not operating as intended. Annually, 

the OIG engages an independent public accounting firm to conduct an audit of the CFTC's 

financial statements and repmi on the CFTC's compliance with laws and regulations related 

to its financial statements. The auditors concluded that the CFTC was generally in 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations and did not identify any matter related to 

purchase card and convenience check usage. Our last formal review of purchase card 

transactions, which targeted potentially suspicious purchases during FY20 12, resulted in no 

recommendations.2 Accordingly, there are no outstanding recommendations regarding the 

purchase card and convenience checking programs. We conclude the cunent risk of illegal, 

improper, or enoneous purchases is low. 

1 Letter from Inspector General Lavik to Chairman Massad dated November 17, 2014 regarding the review of 

intemal controls over agency programs and operations mandated under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity 

Act of 1982. 2 Review of75 Purchases by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: March 2011 - March 2012 (Dec. 20, 

20 12).
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

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 consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated
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 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)) for the Registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer 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 Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.

Date: November 12, 2007

/s/ R. Jerry Giles
R. Jerry Giles
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 589, Misc.

#### In re Lewis et al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Certiorari denied. Motion for leave to file *913petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition also denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Rafael Torres,****Chief Financial Officer****ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and 

the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PLXTechnology, Inc. and will be retained by PLX Technology, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
**UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C.  20549
FORM 10-QSB/A

[X]      QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXHANGE            ACT OF 1934
          For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2001

[  ]       TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE            ACT OF 1934

          For the transition period from **                     ** to **                     **

**Commission File Number: 0-18261**
**COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION**(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)VIRGINIA54-1532044(State of other jurisdiction ofincorporation or organization)(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)38 North Central Ave., Staunton, Va. 24401(Address of principal executive offices zip code)
(540) 886-0796(Issuer's telephone number, including area code)
Number of shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, outstanding at the close of business on July 30, 2001:2,297,362.

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (Check one):         Yes  [  ]                  No  [X]

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Explanatory Note       This Form 10-QSB/A is being filed to amend Part II, Item 6(b) of the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2001 filed on August 1, 2001.  The purpose of this amended filing is to reflect a Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 7, 2001.1**
Sergio David BEZERRA, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-324.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District denied.
ACCEPTED12-14-00206-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS1/6/2015 4:29:29 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DAVID LAIKEN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 129 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 129 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, charging the following respondent with violation of the Commodity 

Exchange Act: 

David Laiken 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that David Laiken, a member of the New York Mercantile 

Exchange and a registered floor broker under the act, operated as a futures 

commission merchant during April and May 1962 without being registered as such. 

The complaint also alleges that during such period and in connection with such 

operation David Laiken failed to properly handle funds entrusted to him by a 

customer. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, October 5, 1965, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
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 amended quarterly report of SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Henry P. Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Henry P. Hoffman
-------------------------
Henry P. Hoffman
Chief Executive Officer
November 1, 2005


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under "Experts" in the Registration
Statement  (Form  S-3  No.  333-88189)  and the  related  Prospectus  of  Marvel
Enterprises,  Inc.  for the  registration  of Class B  Warrants,  8%  Cumulative
Convertible   Exchangeable   Preferred   Stock  and  Common  Stock  and  to  the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 8, 2002 with respect to the
consolidated  financial statements of Marvel Enterprises,  Inc. included in this
Annual Report on (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                               /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2002
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RICE COMMODITIES, INC., AND SAM L. RICE, JR. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 213 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 213 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Rice Commodities, Inc., and Sam L. Rice, Jr. 

(Toledo, Ohio) 

The complaint charges that on March 31 and on April 21, 1972, Rice 

Commodities, Inc., acted as a futures commission merchant, notwithstanding that 

it failed to meet the Chicago Board of Trade and CEA's minimum financial 

requirements. It also charges that on April 21, 1972, the respondents filed 

with CEA a false report purporting to show the corporation's financial condition 

as of March 31, 1972. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before a referee in Toledo, 

Ohio, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Enrique JIMENEZ-ROJAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5312.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1458

_____________________________ A

VEIS L. B ROWN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Du val County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. October 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9 .330 or 9 .331

.

_____________________________ Aveis L. Brown, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.