alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nellie LOGUERRE, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Winter Haven Hospital, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D10-3713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 21, 2011.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 2011.

*1184Nellie Loguerre, pro se, Appellant.

A. Robert Whaley, General Counsel, M. Elaine Howard, Assistant General Counsel, Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

In this unemployment compensation appeal, Appellant challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying benefits. An appeals referee originally awarded benefits, determining Appellant’s failure to pass a necessary certification exam did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct defined in section 443.036(29)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Appellant’s employer appealed the decision to the Commission, which determined the referee’s decision was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Commission concluded the only competent, substantial evidence in the record supported the conclusion that Appellant was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

We are compelled to reverse the Commission’s order under the supreme court’s and this court’s precedent. *See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington,*567 So.2d 420 (Fla.1990); *Caro v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n,*734 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In *Washington,*a teacher was discharged after failing a required certification exam three years in a row. *Washington,*567 So.2d at 420. The court reasoned that under well-settled law, an employee who is discharged for inadequate work performance is entitled to benefits, and no meaningful distinction exists between an employee who cannot meet a known condition of work and one who simply fails to measure up to the job requirements. *Id.*at 423. The teacher was thus entitled to benefits. *Id.*The court noted that had the school board proven the teacher failed to adequately prepare for the exam, she may have been denied compensation for engaging in misconduct. *Id.*at 422.

Here, although some evidence exists to find that Appellant did not adequately prepare for the required exam and that she avoided admitting she failed, this court has held that such evidence does not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. *See Caro,*734 So.2d at 1078 (following *Washington,*and holding that while the claimant may have demonstrated poor judgment by failing to adequately prepare for teacher’s exam, she was not guilty of misconduct). Therefore, the Commission erroneously concluded that Appellant engaged in misconduct connected to her work.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1675 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1675

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban 
   Development regarding electronic filing of previous participation 
certificates and regarding filing of such certificates with respect to 
                 certain low-income housing investors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preservation Approval Process 
Improvement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIREMENT.

    The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall--
            (1) suspend mandatory processing of Previous Participation 
        Certificates (form HUD-2530) under the Department of Housing 
        and Urban Development's Automated Partners Performance System 
        (APPS) and permit paper filings of such certificates until such 
        time that the Secretary--
                    (A) revises the December 2006 draft proposed 
                regulations under subpart H of part 200 of title 24, 
                Code of Federal Regulations, to eliminate the 
                unnecessary burdens and disincentives for program 
                participants; and
                    (B) submits such revised draft proposed regulations 
                to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
                Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                and Urban Affairs of the Senate for review by such 
                Committees; and
            (2) suspend immediately all filing requirements under the 
        Previous Participation Certificate process with respect to 
        limited liability corporate investors who own or expect to own 
        an interest in entities which are allowed or are expected to be 
        allowed low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1675

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban 
   Development regarding electronic filing of previous participation 
certificates and regarding filing of such certificates with respect to 
                 certain low-income housing investors.
```
#### Michael NOEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4970.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 2011.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The public defender has moved to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed an appellate brief noting one sentencing error. Appellant pled guilty to attempted robbery with a firearm and was sentenced to twenty-seven years in prison, followed by two years of community control and three years of probation. Attempted robbery with a firearm, however, is a second-degree felony subject to a maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison. § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007); *Zeman v. State,*46 So.3d 162, 162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Thus, the sentence imposed on the attempted robbery count was erroneous, and we reverse the sentence on that charge and remand for resentencing. Otherwise, we agree that the record contains no issues of arguable *387merit. We grant the public defender’s motion to withdraw and affirm the conviction and sentence in all other respects.

*Affirmed, in part, reversed in part, and remanded.*

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE> 1
                           STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION
                           OF NET INCOME PER SHARE 

                                                     Three months ended
                                                           June 30,      
                                                     1998            1997  
                                                ------------     ------------

Net income as reported . . . . . . . . . . .      $  999,000        $ 786,000
                                                ============     ============

                                  
BASIC:
  Weighted average number of common shares 
    outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3,267,851        3,190,198
                                                ============     ============

  Basic earnings per share . . . . . . . . .           $0.31            $0.25
                                                ============     ============


DILUTED: 
  Common and common equivalent shares outstanding:
    Weighted average number of common shares 
      outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3,267,851        3,190,198
    Common stock equivalents from options computed 
      on the treasury-stock method using the average 
      fair market value of common stock during 
      the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         146,395          149,977
                                                ------------     ------------
    Shares used in the computation . . . . .       3,414,246        3,340,175
                                                ============     ============

 Diluted earnings per share. . . . . . . . .           $0.29            $0.24
                                                ============     ============
#### STATE ex rel. Prince FULTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0719.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Fulton, Prince; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 302988; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0050.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. *1244930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### Steven JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-3352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur; WEBSTER, J., concurs with opinion.

WEBSTER, J.,

concurring.

I concur in the majority’s affirmance of all issues raised in this Jimmy Ryce Act case. I write only to note an improper comment on the evidence by the trial judge.

During opening statement, appellant’s lawyer told the jury:

> [T]he state is going to try to make you believe that there is a mental disorder out there, called paraphilia NOS non-consenting person, otherwise known as paraphilia based on rape. And I will be submitting to you during this trial, that that mental disorder does not exist, that it is a disorder that was made up, that was created by psychologists to support ....

The trial court correctly sustained the state’s objection that the statement by appellant’s lawyer was impermissible argument. *See First v. State,*696 So.2d 1357, 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“The purpose of an opening statement is for counsel to outline the facts expected to be proved at trial. It is not the appropriate place for argument.”). However, when appellant’s lawyer said that he was “just saying that the evidence will show that,” the trial court responded, “No. The evidence will not show that they’ve made it up, it is a science, they’ve made some prior tests.” Appellant correctly argues that the trial judge’s remark was an inappropriate comment on the evidence. *See, e.g., Jones v. State,*612 So.2d 1370, 1373 (Fla.1992) (“It is error for a judge to comment on the evidence in the jury’s presence.”) (citing *Raulerson v. State,*102 So.2d 281 (Fla.1958)); *Simmons v. State,*803 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Florida law is clear that it is error for the judge to make *155a remark within the hearing of the jury that might convey his view of the case or his opinion of the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence.”) (citing *Fenelon v. State,*594 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla.1992); *Whitfield v. State,*452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984); *Seward v. State,*59 So.2d 529, 531 (Fla.1952); and *Leavine v. State,*109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897, 902 (1933)). Unfortunately, however, appellant’s lawyer did not object to the comment and, accordingly, the error was not preserved for appellate review. *See Moore v. State,*701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997) (citing *Jones v. State,*612 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1992)). Because the comment was not sufficiently egregious to constitute fundamental error, we must affirm.
EXHIBIT 12.1  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
 LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST / LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Amounts in thousands except ratio amounts)
 Nine months ended September 30, 2008Earnings before fixed charges:Income before allocation of minority interest
and income from investments in unconsolidated
subsidiaries
    
    $
    109,667Add: Interest expense
    
    
    114,888Depreciation expense on capd interest
    
    
    862Amortization of deferred
financing costs
    
    
    3,448Earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    228,865Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    114,888Amortization of deferred financing charges
    
    
    3,448Capitalized interest
    
    
    16,793Fixed charges
    
    
    135,129Preferred share distributions
    
    
    Preferred unit distributions
    
    
    15,759Combined fixed charges
    
    $
    150,888Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.69Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
    
    
    1.52
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC16 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 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 the Reporting Period.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice President Wells Fargo Bank   
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|
News United States Air Force
 'Iron Horse' sets off for final flightPublished March 4, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Dillian Bamman
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                The 23rd Wing sent the Air Force's oldest C-130 to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, for its retirement March 3.
Aircraft 62-1863, an HC-130P Combat King nicknamed "Iron Horse," experienced 52 years of service and three different modifications during its tenure.
"The history is rich with this aircraft," said Tim Martin, the Air Force Engineering Technical Services adviser for C-130 maintenance personnel. "This is because it is a one of a kind aircraft and there never will be another like it."
Iron Horse began its Air Force career as a C-130E Hercules assigned to the 374th Tactical Airlift Wing during the Vietnam War and ended with a final deployment in 2009 with the 71st Rescue Squadron.
"What makes this aircraft special is that it has flown 27,533 flying hours, the second most of any C-130 aircraft in the Air Force," Martin said.
Iron Horse first got its nickname when it was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB in 1994 as an EC-130C Airborne Command and Control Center.
After nine years at its future retirement home in Arizona, the historic aircraft was selected by Air Combat Command for its final modification into the HC-130P Combat King.
"(This) was the only aircraft to be converted with Lockheed Martin's tanker conversion program in Sept. 2003," Martin said. "After its conversion, Air Force Special Operations Command made the decision to cancel the program and buy new HC-130J aircraft."
Moody and its 71st RQS welcomed Iron Horse into its fleet in 2007, and it has served here until the HC-130J Combat King II was introduced.
The 23rd Wing's transition to the newer J Model began in 2011, so the P Models like Iron Horse have been slowly phased out over the past four years.
"I grew up on these planes from being stationed here in May 2001," said Tech. Sgt. David Poe, 723rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron section chief. "I thought I would be retiring with these (P Models), but they're still in service."
Once Iron Horse reaches the boneyard, the aircrew assigned to it will attend a retirement ceremony to acknowledge its service.
"The retirement is a remembrance of a whole generation of maintainers," Poe said. "It's also a realization that a whole generation of C-130s is disappearing slowly."
Moody continues to retire older P Models like Iron Horse, and according to Martin, AF 65-00982 is next P Model on the list for Davis-Monthan AFB's boneyard for June.Moody AFB 



ACC 



C-130 Hercules 



C-130 



retirement 



Boneyard 



Davis-Monthan AFB 



Iron Horse
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald J. STANFIELD.

No. 2011-KO-0266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Stanfield, Ronald J.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 490-286; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0854.

Denied.
#### SPENCER TRASK VENTURES, INC., Appellant, v. MATEO HOLDINGS, INC., and Santiago Reyes, Appellees.

No. 3D09-3241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 2010.

Scott N. Gelfand, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Broad and Cassel, and Beverly A. Pohl and Tara Ravichandran, Fort Lauderdale, and Mark F. Raymond, for appellees.

Before GERSTEN and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *GCA, Inc. v. 90*S.W. *8th St. Enters., Inc.,*696 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); *Turnberry*Assocs. *v. Serv. Station Aid, Inc.,*651 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1995); *Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,*377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); *Cassedy v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,*751 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C22 Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series 2014-C22

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of MakeMusic, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 9, 2007 By:  /s/ John W. Paulson   John W. Paulson   Chief Executive Officer