alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.gpo.gov

### §1192. Eligibility for per capita payments

The persons eligible to receive such per capita payments shall be all persons who were living on December 17, 1965, and whose names appear on any of the following:

(a) The membership roll of the Confederated Tribes as of June 15, 1957, as approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on January 10, 1958, or

(b) The supplemental membership roll as of April 12, 1960, approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on January 27, 1961, and also any other persons born after July 1, 1949, and living on or at any time between December 17, 1965, and May 21, 1970, who were either enrolled as of May 21, 1970, or became entitled to enrollment under section (b), article IV of the constitution and bylaws of the Confederated Tribes adopted November 4, 1949, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative.

(Pub. L. 91–259, §2, May 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 254.)
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INC. AND 

 AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1868-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 FEBRUARY 18, 1997 

ANITA ARTIS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Robert A. Rapaport (Lynne M. Ferris; Knight, 

Dudley, Clarke & Dolph, P.L.C., on brief), 

for appellants. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., (employer) appeals a decision 

of the Workers' Compensation Commission that denies it credit for 

benefits paid earlier pursuant to an award under the federal 

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). We find 

that employer must be given credit for the dollar amounts 

previously paid, and we reverse the commission's award. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in the 

cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no 

precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 Employer paid benefits under the LHWCA for temporary total 

disability to Anita Artis for a compensable injury she suffered 

while in its employ. The Virginia Workers' Compensation 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Commission subsequently found a permanent partial disability, and 

awarded benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. See Code 

§ 65.2-503. The commission refused to allow employer to offset 

this award by the dollar amount of benefits paid under the LHWCA, 

claiming that the two types of benefits are different and may not 

be credited against one another. 

 We disagree. In Virginia Int'l Terminals, Inc. v. Moore, 22 

Va. App. 396, 470 S.E.2d 574 (1996), we held: 

 Subject to the approval of the commission, an 

employer is entitled to a credit for any 

"voluntary payment" it may have made to the 

employee. As defined by the statute, a 

payment is "voluntary" if it was not "due and 

payable" by "the terms of this title" when 

made. Thus, the disability payments employer 

paid claimant under the LHWCA were 

"voluntary" because when paid they were not 

"due and payable" under "the terms of" the 

Virginia Act. Therefore, the amounts paid 

under the LHWCA should have been deducted 

from employer's liability as determined by 

the commission. The statute makes no 

exception to its command, and its language 

directing that a credit be provided for "any" 

voluntary payments indicates an intent to 

provide a credit for all payments that fall 

within its classification of "voluntary." 

Id. at 405, 470 S.E.2d at 578-79. The amounts paid by employer 

under the LHWCA should therefore be set off against "any future 

liability it may have to claimant for the injury received," 

regardless of the classification of the disability. Id. at 406, 

470 S.E.2d at 579. 

 We reverse and remand, instructing the commission to 

determine the dollar amount paid under the LHWCA and to credit 
- 3 - 

employer that amount against the commission's award. 

 Reversed and

remanded.
----

REPORT

on the annual accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2005 together with the Agency's replies

(2006/C 312/04)

CONTENTS

Tables 1 to 4

The Agency's replies

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

Reliability of the accountsThe Agency's accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2005 are, in all material respects, reliable.Legality and regularity of underlying transactionsExcept for the cases referred to in paragraph 9, the transactions underlying the Agency's annual accounts, taken as a whole, are legal and regular.

OBSERVATIONS

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 28 September 2006.

For the Court of Auditors

Hubert WEBER

President

----

(1)OJ L 204, 14.8.1996, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 358, 3.12.2004, p. 2.

(3)  Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2068/2004.

(4)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(5)  These accounts were drawn up on 11 July 2006 and received by the Court on 21 July 2006.

(6)OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 7.

(7)  He also advises the management.

(8)  Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement (29 April 2003).

----

Table 1

European Agency for Reconstruction (Thessalonica)

EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR RECONSTRUCTION

Source: Agency data — These tables summarise the data provided by the Agency in its annual accounts.

Table 2

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005

Table 3

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial year 2005 (1)

Table 4

Balance sheet at 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2004 (2)

----

(1)  Data for the financial year 2004 are not shown as they are not comparable with data for 2005 because of the change in the accounting principles applied.

(2)  Data for the financial year 2004 have been restated to allow for comparison with those for 2005.

----

THE AGENCY'S REPLIES

----
Exhibit 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Marty E. Adams                             
|Marty E. Adams                                 
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

April 28, 2006

The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, 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.
§ 601.803 Program operations and requirements. ( a ) *Objective.* The objective of the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program is to provide free assistance in the preparation of Federal income tax returns to elderly taxpayers age 60 and over, by providing training, technical and administrative support to volunteers under the direction of non-profit agencies and organizations that have cooperative agreements with the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) *Period of program operations.* Most tax return preparation assistance will be provided to elderly taxpayers during the period for filing Federal income tax returns, from January 1 to April 15 each year. However, the program activities required to ensure elderly taxpayers efficient and quality tax assistance will normally be conducted year round. Program operations will generally be divided into the following segments each year: October—recruit volunteers; November and December—set training and testing schedules for volunteers, identify assistance sites, complete publicity plans for sites; December and January—train and test volunteers, set volunteer assistance schedules; January through May—provide tax assistance, conduct publicity for sites; May and June—prepare final reports and evaluate program; July and August—prepare for next year's program.
( c ) *Assistance requirements.* All tax return preparation assistance provided under Tax Counseling for the Elderly programs must be provided free of charge to taxpayers and must be provided only to elderly individuals. An elderly individual is an individual age 60 or over at the close of the individual's taxable year with respect to which tax return preparation assistance is to be provided. Where a joint return is involved, assistance may be provided where only one spouse satisfies the 60 year age requirement.
( d ) *Training and testing of volunteers.* Volunteers will normally be provided training and will normally be required to pass tests designed to measure their understanding of Federal tax subjects on which they will provide tax return assistance. Volunteers who do not receive a satisfactory score will not be eligible to participate in the program.
( e ) *Confidentiality of tax information.* Program sponsors must obtain written assurance from all volunteers and all other individuals involved in the program, to respect the confidentiality of income and financial information known as a result of preparation of a return or of providing tax counseling assistance in the preparation of Federal income tax returns.
#### § 1022.311 Filing obligations.

Refer to § 1010.311 of this chapter for reports of transactions in currency filing obligations for money services businesses.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Foundation Building Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to each such officer’s knowledge, that:


(i)the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10‐K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 27, 2017/s/ Ruben MendozaRuben MendozaPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 27, 2017/s/ John GoreyJohn GoreyChief Financial Officer
#### Elm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of General Electric Capital Auto Lease, an Unincorporated Division of General Electric Capital Corporation, Respondent, v GEICO Direct et al., Defendants, and GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 34]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J), entered August 24, 2004, which, to the extent appealed *220from, denied so much of defendant-appellant’s motion as sought dismissal of the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant appellant’s motion insofar as to dismiss the fourth cause of action, sounding in breach of contract, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, in its capacity as excess liability insurer, paid $700,000 to settle the underlying action. The defense of the action was handled by lawyers retained by the primary liability insurer, defendant-appellant GEICO, which, in connection with the settlement, paid its policy limit of $100,000. Alleging that defendant and the law firm it retained misinformed plaintiff regarding the status of the case and the extent of the injuries involved, failed to inform plaintiff that its insured was precluded from testifying, failed to conduct an investigation, and specifically advised plaintiff that liability would not exceed the policy limits of the primary layer of coverage, plaintiff now sues the law firm for malpractice and breach of contract, and defendant-appellant GEICO for bad faith and breach of contract. The breach of contract claim against GEICO is not sustainable since plaintiff does not specify any contractual provision that was breached, and because the law firm was an independent contractor for whose acts and omissions GEICO is not answerable *(see Feliberty v Damon, 72*NY2d 112 [1988]).

While this is not a case in which bad faith may be found in the context of a failure to settle, the underlying litigation having in fact been settled, dismissal of plaintiffs bad faith claim was properly denied in light of allegations permitting the inference that GEICO, by deliberately or recklessly misrepresenting the status of the litigation, effectively deprived plaintiff subrogee of a meaningful opportunity to protect its client’s interests by realistically evaluating and prosecuting the case *(see Pavia v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*82 NY2d 445 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>            This schedule contains summary information
                    extracted  from the Consolidated Statements of
                    Operations and  Consolidated Balance Sheets of
                    Covalent Group, Inc. and is qualified in its
                    entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000856569 
<NAME>                   Covalent Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
       
<S>                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      Sep-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<CASH>                              2,007,502
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         795,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    4,164,343
<PP&E>                                694,627
<DEPRECIATION>                       (186,349)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      4,681,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,281,279
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               11,543
<OTHER-SE>                          3,388,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        4,681,294
<SALES>                             6,622,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    6,622,841
<CGS>                               3,796,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       5,892,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,197 
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   793,027 
<DISCONTINUED>                       (458,836)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          334,191 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.03)
#### In the Matter of the Adoption of Curtis B.W. Bryan C.W. et al., Respondents; Jenny-Beth L., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 494]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V Hunt, J.), entered March 10, 2004 in an adoption proceeding. The order adjudged the child to have been abandoned by respondent and dispensed with her consent to the adoption of her child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Jenny-Beth L. v Bryan C.W.*(23 AD3d 1069 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
exv10w8wiii



 







Exhibit 10.8(iii)




Amendment to Employment Agreement



This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into effective as of May 8th,
2006 (the “Effective Date”) by and between TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd., of 2 Yodfat St., North
Industrial Zone, Lod, Israel (the “Company”) and Eyal Kolka, of 60 Hameri St., Givataim, Israel
(the “Employee”).



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into a certain Employment Agreement dated as of April
25, 2001 as amended (the “Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement in the manner provided
below.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises herein made, and in
consideration of the representations, warranties, and covenants herein contained, the parties agree
as follows:





	 	1.	 	All terms not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in the Employment Agreement.
	 
	 	2.	 	As of the Effective Date, Employees Salary shall be increased to NIS 40,500 per
month.
	 
	 	3.	 	Notwithstanding Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, the base index for the
purpose of the adjustment of Employee’s Salary to the Consumer Price Index shall be
the index known on the Effective Date.
	 
	 	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect.




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




	 	 	 
	TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.	 	Eyal Kolka
	 
	 	 
	By: /s/ Erez Golan    /s/ Michael Berman

	 	 /s/  Eyal Kolka
	
 
	 	 

	Name: Erez Golan & Michael Berman

	 	Signature:
	Title: CEO & Chairman
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL GONZALEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1624

[November 12, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 472014000347CFAXMX and 

472014000745CFAXMX.

Michael Gonzalez, Orlando, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                               ------------


             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      The undersigned, Deborah A. McLaughlin, is the Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the
"Company"). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing
by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and

B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
      Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
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.

Date:  May 13, 2004                    /s/ Deborah A. McLaughlin
       ------------                    -----------------------------
                                       Deborah A. McLaughlin
                                       Chief Financial Officer/Chief
                                       Operating Officer


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN :

JALLUL ALHAMI, et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-359 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

A Motions Hearing was held in this case on March 19, 2009,

which took place in part in open court and in part in a sealed

courtroom due to the discussion of classified information. The

matter is before the Court on Petitioners’ Motion for Summary

Judgment [Dkt. No. 74]. Upon consideration of the Motion,

Opposition, Reply, oral argument, and the entire record herein, and

for the reasons set forth below, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

denied. As stated in open court, and as stated in more detail in

closed session, this decision rests on two bases. First, as a

procedural matter, summary judgment is inappropriate because

Petitioners’ Motion focuses on the wrong record. Petitioners rely

on the record as it existed before the filing of amended factual

returns, and therefore make their case without due consideration of

the additions and modifications that the Government made in its

amended returns. Second, material factual disputes exist, as
-2-

indicated in the Government’s Opposition and as specified in the

closed session; and it is further

ORDERED, that this case shall proceed under the Court’s Case

Management Order. Accordingly, the Government must produce

exculpatory evidence by April 10, 2009; and it is further

ORDERED, that parties shall file by April 23, 2009, a Joint

Status Report, indicating the progress that has been made regarding

discovery; and it is further

ORDERED, that a Status Conference shall be held on April 27,

2009, at 1:30 p.m.

 /s/ 

March 19, 2009 Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 1, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14614

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-00036-CR-WLS-7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GABRIEL MALDONADO,

a.k.a Juan Gabrial Maldonado,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(May 1, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Rick Collum, retained counsel for Juan Gabriel Maldonado in this direct

criminal appeal, 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 Maldonado’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED. Maldonado’s motion for appointment of counsel on

appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

2
This page intentionally blank. 

 
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726 

559.230.6100 | www.valleyair.org