alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edwin R. PLANELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 2011.

Grigaltchik & Rowe and Adam Rowe, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Timothy R.M. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, CORTINAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Floyd v. State,*18 So.3d 432, 443-44 (Fla.2009); *Tingley v. State,*549 So.2d 649 (Fla.1989).
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1617

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, 

Missouri, as the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1617 EH

1 SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in Univer4 sity City, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1617

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostWoods Post Office Building’’. University City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Harriett F. al Service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in
EXHIBIT 10.1

           [letterhead of Unified Trust Company, National Association]





May 19, 2003

VIA REGISTERED MAIL, RETURN
---------------------------
RECEIPT REQUESTED
-----------------

Dr. Gregory W. Kasten
104 Foxborough Court
Lexington, Kentucky 40356

         Re:      Notice of Termination of Executive Employment Agreement
                  -------------------------------------------------------

Dear Greg:

     Pursuant to that certain Employment  Agreement,  dated June 1, 1997, by and
between you and Unified Trust  Company,  National  Association  (as successor by
merger to Health Financial,  Inc. ("Unified Trust")), as amended by that certain
Tri-Party Agreement,  dated as of June 18, 2002, by and among you, Unified Trust
and Health Financial,  Inc., and that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement,
dated as of January 1, 2003, by and between you and Unified Trust (collectively,
the "Employment Agreement"),  Unified Trust hereby is providing you with notice,
pursuant to Sections  1.1(e) and 7.1 of the Employment  Agreement,  that Unified
Trust is  exercising  its  right  not to renew the  Employment  Agreement.  As a
result,  absent an earlier  termination of the Employment  Agreement pursuant to
its terms,  the Employment  Agreement will expire on May 31, 2004 (the "Contract
Termination  Date").  This  notice  does not,  and  shall  not,  terminate  your
employment  with Unified Trust,  or otherwise  affect your position as President
and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Unified  Trust.  In the  event you are still
employed  by  Unified  Trust  as of the  Contract  Termination  Date,  you  will
thereafter be employed by Unified Trust pursuant to an at will relationship.

     Please contact John Penn if you should have any questions or comments.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   UNIFIED TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
                                   ASSOCIATION


                                   By: /s/ Jack H. Brown
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   Jack H. Brown, Chief Financial Officer

cc:      John S. Penn
         David F. Morris
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000921066                   
<NAME>                        Restaurant Teams International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         350,947
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  925,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    34,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,310,741
<PP&E>                                         8,068,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (381,192)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,997,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          407,896
<BONDS>                                        4,476,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       79,370
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,033,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,997,705
<SALES>                                        1,264,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,458,228
<CGS>                                          334,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  720,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             61,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                153,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            153,726
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   153,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thaddeus FRITH.

No. 2011-K-1942.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Frith, Thaddeus; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 479-737; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0187.

Denied.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41488

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-70-2

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

November 18, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Jones has appealed the sentence he received upon his

guilty plea of assaulting a postal employee with intent to rob

her, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114. We AFFIRM.

Jones contends, first, that the district court erred by

increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2B3.1(b)(3)(B), arguing that the injury inflicted upon the

postal employee during the robbery was not serious. There was

reliable evidence in the presentence report and the record that

the post traumatic stress disorder which the postal employee 
No. 98-41488

-2-

suffered was a serious bodily injury within the meaning of

§ 2B3.1(b)(3)(B). United States v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523, 530-31

(5th Cir. 1994). Thus, this contention lacks merit. 

Jones also contends that the district court reversibly

misapplied U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(D) in finding that the

resultant monetary loss exceeded $250,000. This finding was

based on a determination that the 600 blank money orders stolen

in the robbery were worth $700 each, that being the maximum

amount for which they could legally be filled in and cashed. As

a result, the court increased Jones’s offense level by three

levels. We review this factual finding for clear error. See

United States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Guideline § 2B3.1, comment. (n.3) provides that valuation of

loss under that section is determined by reference to the

Commentary to § 2B1.1. Note 3 of the latter section states in

part that “[t]he court need only make a reasonable estimate of

the loss, given the available information.” 

The presentence report states, without contradiction, that

prior to Jones’s agreeing to participate in the robbery, he was

aware that Knott had stolen blank money orders from other post

officers and had cashed them for significant amounts. Knott

confessed to having cashed stolen money orders for $900, even

though the legal limit is $700. These findings support the

district court’s calculation of the value of the stolen blank

money orders. See United States v. Oates, 122 F.3d 222, 225 (5th

Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
#### G., H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. Frank Schwartz.

(No. 3536.)

Appeal from Uvalde County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 758. *Account; claim held not to he within meaning of article %%66, Revised Statutes; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant to recover for the board of laborers in appellant’s employ, and also for services rendered by him as section foreman for appellant. His claim was in the form of an account verified by affidavit, in accordance ' with article 2266 of the Revised Statutes. Appellant pleaded a counterclaim for the value of a hand-car, its property, alleged to have been negligently destroyed by appellee while in the employ of the company as section foreman. This counterclaim was stricken out on exceptions of appellee, upon the ground that appellant had not *665denied under oath the justice and correctness of appellee’s verified account. Appellee’s verified account \yas read in evidence on the trial, over appellant’s objections, and judgment was rendered for appellee for the full amount of his claim. *Held:*Appellee’s claim does not come within the meaning of an account as that term is used in article 2266 of the Revised Statutes. It is composed of several isolated transactions, resting upon special contracts. The court erred in admitting it in evidence. *{Ante,*§§ 51, 107.]

June 17, 1885.

§ 759. *Counterclaim; defendant may plead without denying %mder oath plaintiffs verified account.*Appellant’s counterclaim was well pleaded, and it was error to strike it out. Even had appellee’s suit been upon a verified account, it would have been error to strike out the plea. A defendant is entitled to plead a counterclaim without denying under oath the justness and correctness of the plaintiff’s verified account. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1316.]

Reversed and remanded.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1445 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the exclusion 

from gross income for amounts paid to individuals pursuant to the 

Road Home program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. JEFFERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the exclusion from gross income for amounts paid 

to individuals pursuant to the Road Home program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Free Road Home 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF ROAD HOME PROGRAM PAYMENTS 

7 FROM GROSS INCOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 139 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1445 IH

1 disaster relief payment defined) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (3), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

3 end of paragraph (4), and by inserting after paragraph 

4 (4) the following new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(5) to rebuild or renew a personal residence 

6 pursuant to the Road Home program created by the 

7 Louisiana Recovery Authority and funded by the 

8 community development block grant programs under 

9 title I of the Housing and Community Development 

10 Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.),’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2005. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,797
<PP&E>                                       1,336,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,516
<SALES>                                         13,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,189
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,186)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,345)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.64
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                             Exhibit 21.1

                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                           (as of March 31, 1999)


            Corporation                                            State
            -----------                                            -----

Unified Management Corporation                                    Indiana
Unified Fund Services, Inc.                                       Indiana
First Lexington Trust Company                                     Kentucky
Health Financial, Inc.                                            Kentucky
Resource Benefit Planners, Inc.                                   Kentucky
Unified Internet Services, Inc.                                   Indiana
Unified Investment Advisers, Inc.                                 Delaware
Fiduciary Counsel, Inc.                                           Delaware
EMCO Estate Management Company, Inc.                              Delaware
AmeriPrime Financial Services, Inc.                                 Texas
    AmeriPrime Financial Securities, Inc.                           Texas
Equity Underwriting Group, Inc.                                   Kentucky
    Equity Insurance Managers, Inc.                               Kentucky
    21st Century Claims Service, Inc.                             Kentucky
    Equity Insurance Administrators, Inc.                         Kentucky
    Equity Insurance Managers of Illinois, L.L.C.
       (d/b/a Irland & Rogers) (55% owned)                        Illinois
    M. Wilson & Associates, Inc.                                  Kentucky
Commonwealth Premium Finance Corporation                          Kentucky
Strategic Fund Services, Inc.                                     Delaware
Smart Associates, Inc.                                            Delaware
Unified University, Inc.                                          Delaware
Archer Trading, Inc.                                              Delaware
Unified Aviation, Inc.                                            Delaware
HFI Acquisition Corporation                                       Kentucky
FAP Acquisition Corporation                                       Kentucky
VSX Technologies, Inc.                                            New York
Unified Capital Resources, Inc.                                   New York
#### STATE ex rel. James JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0504.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Jones, James; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 8302-05; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 09-1453.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001035507
<NAME>                        800-JR CIGAR, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          12,759
<SECURITIES>                    5,719
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,568
<ALLOWANCES>                    145
<INVENTORY>                     49,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                76,682
<PP&E>                          27,614
<DEPRECIATION>                  5,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  104,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           26,035
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        128
<OTHER-SE>                      73,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    104,672
<SALES>                         286,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                286,512
<CGS>                           233,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   233,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                30,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 22,928
<INCOME-TAX>                    9,194
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             13,734
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    13,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                   1.08
        


</TABLE>
422 A.2d 1172

#### Commonwealth v. Glenn, Appellant.

Argued August 28, 1979.

Richard J. Freyvogel, Jr., for appellant; Kemal Alexander Mericli, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*639Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

The order of the lower court is affirmed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1628 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the admission 

to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors who are 

the spouses and children of United States permanent resident aliens, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2007 

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit 

the admission to the United States of nonimmigrant 

students and visitors who are the spouses and children 

of United States permanent resident aliens, and for other 

purposes. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1628 IH

1 SECTION 1. ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ‘‘B’’ AND ‘‘F’’ VISA NON2 IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE SPOUSES OR CHIL3 DREN OF UNITED STATES PERMANENT RESI4 DENT ALIENS. 

5 Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

6 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating the subsection (t) added by 

8 section 1(b)(2) of Public Law 108–449 (118 Stat. 

9 3469) as a subsection (u); and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(v)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

12 no alien— 

13 ‘‘(A) who is— 

14 ‘‘(i) the spouse or child of an alien lawfully 

15 admitted for permanent residence to the United 

16 States; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) not eligible to enter the United States 

18 as an immigrant except by reason of being such 

19 a spouse or child; and 

20 ‘‘(B) who seeks admission to the United States 

21 for purposes of visiting the permanent resident 

22 spouse or parent or for studying in the United 

23 States; and 

24 ‘‘(C) who is otherwise qualified; 

25 may be denied issuance of a visa, or may be denied admis26 sion to the United States, as a nonimmigrant alien demstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1628 IH

1 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(B) who is coming to the 

2 United States temporarily for pleasure or as a non3 immigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(F). 

4 ‘‘(2) Whenever an alien described in paragraph (1) 

5 seeks admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant 

6 alien described in section 101(a)(15)(B) who is coming 

7 temporarily for pleasure or as a nonimmigrant alien de8 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(F), the fact that a petition 

9 has been filed on the alien’s behalf for classification of 

10 the alien as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi11 dence shall not constitute evidence of the alien’s intention 

12 to abandon his or her foreign residence.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. Shane CLIFTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1135.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Clifton, Shane; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 06-6383; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-143.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin W. KAIGLER.

No. 2011-K-1481.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Kaigler, Kevin W.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 439243-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1839.

Denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Dec. 09, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16207

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 92-00104-CR-ORL-19KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KIRK WHITTAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(December 9, 2009)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas H. Dale, appointed counsel for Kirk Whittaker in this appeal from
the district court’s denial of Whittaker’s motion to vacate his sentence for lack of

jurisdiction, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s denial of

Whittaker’s motion is AFFIRMED.

2