alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INTRACOASTAL POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Condominium Association, Appellant, v. Lisa HOROWITZ, individually; Nancy Teske, individually; and Robert Judd, individually., Appellees.

No. 3D10-973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 2011.

Litchfield Cavo and Geralyn M. Passaro and Thomas J. Jerla, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Marva L. Wiley, Hialeah, for appellees.

Before, RAMIREZ, C.J., and SUAREZ and CORTIÑAS, JJ.

CORTIÑAS, J.

Lisa Horowitz, Nancy Teske, and Robert Judd (collectively the “Unit Owners”) filed an action for declaratory judgment against the Intracoastal Point Condominium Association (the “Association”) asserting the invalidity of a “special meeting” held in January 2009 and seeking the appointment of a receiver. The Unit Owners alleged, in part, that three specific members of the Association “did not receive appropriate notice as the owners of the record at the time of the purported ‘special meeting.’ ” The Association, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the Unit Owners failed to first seek arbitration as required by section 718.1255. The trial court denied the motion.

Section 718.1255(4)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that “[pjrior to the institution of court litigation, a party to a dispute shall petition the [Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes of the Department of Business] for nonbinding arbitration.” § 718.1255(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). As set forth in the statute,

> (1) ... “dispute” means any disagreement between two or more parties that involves:

> 

> (b) The failure of a governing body, when required by this chapter or an association document to:

> 

> *5292. Give adequate notice of meetings or other actions.

§ 718.1255(l)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2009).

Under the facts of this case, we agree with the Association that the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the Unit Owners failed to comply with the arbitration requirement of section 718.1255. *See Neate v. Cypress Club Condo., Inc.,*718 So.2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed and remanded.

RAMIREZ, C.J.,

concurring.

I concur with our reversal in this case. Upon remand, the trial court should dismiss the action without prejudice to comply with section 718.1255, Florida Statutes (2009).
<PAGE>   1
[BANKAMERICA LETTERHEAD]

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.1(b)

May 1, 1997




LDM Technologies, Inc.
2500 Executive Hills Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 43216


Attention:  Richard Nash
            Chief Executive Officer


                Re:     $45,000,000 Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of 
                        January 22, 1997, among LDM Technologies, Inc. (the 
                        "Borrower"), the financial institutions from time to
                        time party thereto (the "Lenders"), and BankAmerica 
                        Business Credit, Inc., as Agent (the "Agent") (as 
                        amended through the date hereof, the "Loan and Security 
                        Agreement")

Gentlemen:

                Reference is hereby made to the provisions contained in Section 
9.13(d)(iv) of the Loan and Security Agreement (the "Intercompany Loan Clause").
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning 
provided such term in the Loan and Security Agreement.

                The undersigned Majority Banks hereby agree that, subject to the
limitations contained in clause (A) and (B) of the Intercompany Loan Clause, 
the Borrower shall be permitted to make loans to LDM Canada pursuant to the 
Intercompany Loan Clause without giving effect to the EBITDA limitation 
contained in the proviso thereto.

                This Letter Agreement shall become effective as of the date 
hereof upon the execution and delivery hereof by the Borrower and the Majority 
Lenders.

                The execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Letter 
Agreement shall not operate as a  waiver of any right, power or remedy of the 
Agent or any Lender under the Loan and Security Agreement or any other Loan 
Document, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Loan Security 
Agreement or any other Loan Document, except as specifically set forth herein.

<PAGE>   2

May 1, 1997
Page 2

        THIS LETTER AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE INTERNAL LAWS (AS OPPOSED TO CONFLICTS OF LAWS PROVISIONS) OF THE 
STATE OF ILLINOIS.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Letter Agreement as 
of the date and year first above written.



                                          BANKAMERICA BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.
                                          Individually as a Lender and as Agent




                                          By: [SIG]
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Title: Vice President






AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

LDM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By: [SIG]
   ---------------------------------
   Title: Director of Finance
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1315 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide specially adaptive housing 

assistance to certain disabled members of the Armed Forces residing 

temporarily in housing owned by a family member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2007 

Ms. HERSETH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide specially 

adaptive housing assistance to certain disabled members 

of the Armed Forces residing temporarily in housing 

owned by a family member. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF SPECIALLY ADAPTIVE HOUSING 

4 ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED MEMBERS OF THE 

5 ARMED FORCES RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN 

6 HOUSING OWNED BY A FAMILY MEMBER. 

7 Section 2102A of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1315 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 

2 subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol4 lowing new subsection (d): 

5 ‘‘(c) ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED

6 FORCES.—The Secretary may provide assistance under 

7 subsection (a) to a member of the Armed Forces serving 

8 on active duty who is suffering from a disability described 

9 in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2) of section 2101 of this title 

10 if such disability is the result of an injury incurred or dis11 ease contracted in or aggravated in the line of duty in 

12 the active military, naval, or air service. Such assistance 

13 shall be provided to the same extent as assistance is pro14 vided under subsection (a) to veterans eligible for assist15 ance under that subsection and subject to the limitation 

16 under subsection (c).’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MovieFone,
Inc.'s condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the six months
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-13-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,979,666
<SECURITIES>                                   971,471
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,100,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    162,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,579,406
<PP&E>                                       5,688,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,076,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,470,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,448,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,160
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,021,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,470,037
<SALES>                                        110,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,373,547
<CGS>                                           93,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,599,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,703,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,703,494)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,703,494)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Reduction initiative axes 506 publications, aims to empower leadersPublished Feb. 25, 2021
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                After four years of review, the Department of the Air Force publication reduction initiative introduced in 2017 by then Secretary of the Air Force **Heather Wilson** is nearing a close.
In a letter dated Aug. 29, 2018, the Air Force secretary, chief of staff and chief master sergeant explained the desire to empower commanders at all levels to use their best judgement when making decisions to accomplish the mission.
The publications included in the initiative were organized into three categories: Air Force Policy Directives, Air Force Instructions and Air Force Manuals.
As of February 2021, 506 publications have been rescinded, 854 have been updated and 66 are currently in formal coordination with only 23 publications awaiting review.
During the review, functional communities considered if publications added value, set policy, described best practices and delegated authority to the lowest practical level.
According to Yoon Song, U.S. Air Force departmental publishing office director, the 23 pending publications are either waiting for higher **U.S. Department of Defense** reviews to be resolved before the affected Air Force publications can be reviewed, or the inclusion of the **U.S. Space Force** and other reorganization actions.
To view the up-to-date publications, visit **www.e-publishing.af.mil**.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Publication Reduction Initiative 



rescinded 



publications 



empower 



policy 



directives 



instructions 



manuals
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph McKENDALL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1671.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re McKendall, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 192-710; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0597.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary A. Brukardt Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Gary A. Brukardt
--------------------
Gary A. Brukardt
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920354
<NAME> PROJECT SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,876
<SECURITIES>                                    39,412
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,769
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,253
<PP&E>                                          20,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,419
<SALES>                                         14,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,917
<CGS>                                            1,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,298
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,892
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Hosea DESHOTEL, III.

No. 2010-KK-2728.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Deshotel III, Hosea; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2002-111810A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-00679.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.
#### Donald E. COLVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 17, 2011.

*890Donald E. Colvin, Satsuma, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

Donald Colvin (defendant) appeals the order entered by the trial court modifying his probation to include electronic monitoring. The State properly concedes error. Accordingly, we strike the trial court’s modification order.

In 2003, the defendant pled *nolo conten-dere*to three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment, followed by three years of sex offender probation. In March 2010, the defendant completed his prison term and was released. Three months later, the defendant’s probation officer sent a letter to the trial court requesting that the court modify the terms of the defendant’s probation by imposing the requirement that the defendant be subject to electronic monitoring. The trial court entered an order amending the defendant’s probation to require him to participate in the electronic monitoring program.

The defendant maintains that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the terms of his probation because his sentence was entered more than sixty days before the modification order was entered. The State concedes error.

Rule 3.800(c) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a trial court possesses jurisdiction to modify a legal sentence; however, such modification must occur within sixty days of the imposition of sentence. The instant modification order, which was entered more than seven years after the defendant’s sentence was imposed, is thus invalid. *See Siplen v. State,*969 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)(holding that the trial court erred in modifying the defendant’s probationary sentence because the modification order was not entered within sixty days after sentencing).

Modification order STRICKEN.

MONACO, C.J. and JACOBUS, J., concur.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Doylestown Hospital, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2524 C.D. 2015

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Kulak), :

Respondent :

Nancy Kulak, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2 C.D. 2016

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Doylestown Hospital), :

Respondent :

AMENDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, the date on line three of 

the second page of the Memorandum Opinion filed August 9, 2016, is amended to 

read July 29, 2014.

_______________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
|   |         |                                                                                                      |
|--------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |    | Commercial Mortgage ServicingD1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tryon StreetCharlotte, NC 282021-800-326-1334 |

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Daniel E. Bober                                                   |
| Executive Vice PresidentCommercial Mortgage ServicingWells Fargo Bank |

|                   |         |   |
|------------------------|--------------|--------|
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |    |        |

----
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Force Protection, Inc.,a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

TheAmended Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K/A”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the informationcontained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: July 12, 2007       |
|---------------------------|
| /s/ GORDON MCGILTON       |   |
| Gordon McGilton           |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| Date: July 12, 2007       |
| /s/ MICHAEL DURSKI        |   |
| Michael Durski            |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
|                           |  |  |

 

----
#### Selig et al. *v.*The Altum Company, Inc., et al.

[No. 19,533.

Filed November 18, 1960.]

*Smith & Jones*and *John T. Hume, III,*both of Indianapolis, for appellants.

*258*Cook, Bose, Buchanan & Evans, Paul H. Buchanan, Jr.,*and *Thomas A. Hendricks,*all of Indianapolis, for appellees.

Bierly, C. J.

A decree was rendered in the Shelby Circuit Court in favor of appellees, and subsequently a motion for a new trial was filed which was overruled by the court on June 6, 1960. A Praecipe was timely filed requesting a Transcript of all the proceedings and bills of exceptions, which Transcript and Assignment of Errors were due by September 4, 1960. A petition for extension of time to file Transcript and Assignment of Errors was filed on August 19, 1960, which was within the time permitted by the rules. A certificate of service was served upon the appellees as required. On August 23, 1960, extension of time was granted to and including November 7, 1960 for the filing of Transcript and Assignment of Errors. No further action was taken by the appellants in this cause.

Failure of appellants to comply with Rule 2-2 in reference to the time within which to file a Transcript and Assignment of Errors precludes further action in this cause by the appellants and no question is presented in this cause nor can any question be presented for decision. *Huber*v. *Tielking,*55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E. 853, 104 N. E. 314.

Failure of appellants to proceed with their appeal within the time prescribed by the rules, this cause is now ordered stricken from the record and terminated, with costs, if any, assessed against the appellants.

Case dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 170 N. E. 2d 387.