alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KENDALL AUTO PARTS, INC. v BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, etc.

Case No. 86-054 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 26, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England, P.A. and Stanley Price for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney, and Eileen Ball Mehta, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

*171William C. Hearon for intervenors.

Before RIVKIND, SHAPIRO, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SIDNEY SHAPIRO, Judge.

KENDALL AUTO PARTS, INC. appeals from a decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County encompassed in Resolution No. Z-292-85 overruling the action of the Zoning Appeals Board which granted variances requested by Appellant. We reverse.

Appellant contends the Commission lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of the Zoning Appeals Board. We need not address that issue.

The transcript of the proceedings before the County Commission reflects that no evidence whatsoever was presented in support of or in opposition to the appeal. The attorneys made statements, not under oath, after which the Commission acted by overruling the Zoning Appeals Board resolution.

The transcript of the proceedings before the County Commission reflects that no evidence whatsoever was presented in support of or in opposition to the appeal. The attorneys made statements, not under oath, after which the Commission acted by overruling the Zoning Appeals Board resolution.

This identical situation was addressed in *A Second Chance, Inc. v. Dade County, et al.,*Cir. Ct. 11th Cir. Case No. 84-261 AP, Op. filed October 29, 1984. Comments and arguments of attorneys are not testimony or evidence. *Houck v. State,*421 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, the Resolution under appeal is vacated and the matter remanded to the Dade County Commission with instructions to conduct a hearing on the merits of the appeal from the Zoning Appeals Board.

It is so Ordered.

RIVKIND and DONNER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                  ------------





                           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 Annual Report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ronald J. Kanterman, Vice President and Chief Financial 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:

         (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.









Date: March 25, 2008                         /s/ Ronald J. Kanterman
      --------------                ------------------------------------------
                                               Ronald J. Kanterman
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)

                                     178
§ 4211.21 Changes subject to PBGC approval. ( a ) *General rule.* Subject to the approval of the PBGC pursuant to this subpart, a plan, other than a plan that primarily covers employees in the building and construction industry, may adopt, by amendment, any allocation method or modification to an allocation method that is not permitted under subpart B of this part.
( b ) *Building and construction industry plans.* Subject to the approval of the PBGC pursuant to this subpart, a plan that primarily covers employees in the building and construction industry may adopt, by amendment, any allocation method or modification to an allocation method that is not permitted under section 4211 of ERISA if the method or modification is applicable only to its employers that are not construction industry employers within the meaning of section 4203(b)(1)(A) of ERISA.
( c ) *Substantial overallocation not allowed.* No plan may adopt an allocation method or modification to an allocation method that results in a systematic and substantial overallocation of the plan's unfunded vested benefits.
( d ) *Use of method prior to approval.* A plan may implement an alternative allocation method or modification to an allocation method that requires PBGC approval before that approval is given. However, the plan sponsor shall assess liability in accordance with this paragraph. ( 1 ) *Demand for payment.* Until the PBGC approves the allocation method or modification, a plan may not demand withdrawal liability under section 4219 of ERISA in an amount that exceeds the lesser of the amount calculated under the amendment or the amount calculated under the allocation method that the plan would be required to use if the PBGC did not approve the amendment. The plan must inform each withdrawing employer of both amounts and explain that the higher amount may become payable depending on the PBGC's decision on the amendment.
( 2 ) *Adjustment of liability.* When necessary because of the PBGC decision on the amendment, the plan shall adjust the amount demanded from each employer under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and the employer's withdrawal liability payment schedule. The length of the payment schedule shall be increased, as necessary. The plan shall notify each affected employer of the adjusted liability and payment schedule and shall collect the adjusted amount in accordance with the adjusted schedule.
[61 FR 34097, July 1, 1996, as amended at 86 FR 1275, Jan. 8, 2021]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ADAN VALENCIA

- GAMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73440

Agency No. A206

- 802

- 253

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Adan Valencia

- Gamez , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention against Torture (“C AT”). We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73440

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidenc e the agency’s factual findings,

Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition

for review.

Valencia

- Gamez does not challenge the agency’ s finding that he failed to

establish past persecution . S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that Valencia

- Gamez failed to establish that any harm he fears in El

Salvador would be on account of a protected ground

. See Zetino v. Holder , 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment

by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no

nexus to a protected ground”) . Thus, Valencia

- Gamez’s asylum and withholding

of removal cl aims fail. See id

.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Valencia

- Gamez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured

with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 26 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple Heart 

and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courageous 

demonstrations of gallantry and heroism on behalf of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. HAGEL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of 

the Purple Heart and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courageous demonstrations of gallantry and heroism on behalf of the United States. 

Whereas the Purple Heart is a combat decoration awarded to 

members of the Armed Forces who are wounded by an 

instrument of war wielded by the enemy; 

Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded posthumously to the 

next of kin in the name of members of the Armed Forces 

who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action; 

Whereas the Purple Heart was originally conceived as the 

Badge of Military Merit by General George Washington 

on August 7, 1782; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 26 IS 

Whereas 2007 marks the 225th anniversary of the Badge of 

Military Merit, the predecessor of the Purple Heart; 

Whereas the practice of awarding the Purple Heart was revived in 1932, the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, out of respect for his memory and military 

achievements; 

Whereas more than 1,535,000 Purple Hearts have been 

awarded to members of the Armed Forces who fought in 

defense of freedom and democracy in World War I, 

World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other expeditionary conflicts; 

Whereas approximately 550,000 recipients of the Purple 

Heart are alive today; 

Whereas the organization known as the Military Order of the 

Purple Heart was formed on October 19, 1932, for the 

protection and mutual interest of members of the Armed 

Forces who have received the Purple Heart; and 

Whereas the Military Order of the Purple Heart is composed 

exclusively of recipients of the Purple Heart and is the 

only veterans’ service organization comprised strictly of 

combat veterans: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) congratulates the Military Order of the Pur4 ple Heart on its 75th anniversary as a national or5 ganization whose goals are to preserve and sustain 

6 the honor of the Armed Forces; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•SCON 26 IS 

1 (2) commends all recipients of the Purple Heart 

2 for their courageous demonstrations of gallantry and 

3 heroism on behalf of the United States; and 

4 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to take time to learn about the Purple Heart and 

6 the honor, courage, and bravery it symbolizes. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
----

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-255/04)

(2004/C 217/24)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The regime for granting licences to service providers established in another Member State who do not possess a licence delivered under comparable conditions in their State of origin is a purely automatic application of the regime which applies to service providers established in France and takes no account of the evidence and guarantees already submitted in the country of origin. The French regime's requirement for a licence in those conditions goes beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests of the performers concerned. Also, the criterion of the benefit of the agency's activity in the light of the needs for the engagement of performers gives the Ministre du travail (Minister for Employment) who is responsible for the grant or withdrawal of the licences, a wholly discretionary power to exclude a foreign service provider because of a sufficiency of French agencies holding a licence in France.

The presumption of employment applied to a performing artist recognised as a service provider established in his Member State of origin where he usually provides similar services constitutes a restriction on the free movement of services since it is liable to prevent or impede the service provider's activities in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services and goes beyond what is necessary to fulfil the objectives which underlie it. Furthermore, the presumption is very difficult to rebut and has consequences not only as regards the social security system but also as regards paid holidays and the supplementary retirement regime. Even if it applies without distinction to national artists and to those of other Member States, the presumption is a restriction which is liable to hinder or make less attractive the activities of performing artists established in a Member State where they lawfully provide similar services and which is disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued.

----
§ 2570.111 Definitions. For section 502(c)(6) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of the definitions in § 18.2 of this title: ( a ) *Adjudicatory proceeding* means a judicial-type proceeding before an administrative law judge leading to the formulation of a final order;
( b ) *Administrative law judge* means an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105;
( c ) *Answer* means a written statement that is supported by reference to specific circumstances or facts surrounding the notice of determination issued pursuant to § 2560.502c-6(g) of this chapter;
( d ) *Commencement of proceeding* is the filing of an answer by the respondent;
( e ) *Consent agreement* means any written document containing a specified proposed remedy or other relief acceptable to the Department and consenting parties;
( f ) *ERISA* means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended;
( g ) *Final order* means the final decision or action of the Department of Labor concerning the assessment of a civil penalty under ERISA section 502(c)(6) against a particular party. Such final order may result from a decision of an administrative law judge or the Secretary, the failure of a party to file a statement of matters reasonably beyond the control of the plan administrator described in § 2560.502c-6(e) of this chapter within the prescribed time limits, or the failure of a party to invoke the procedures for hearings or appeals under this title within the prescribed time limits. Such a final order shall constitute final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704;
( h ) *Hearing* means that part of a proceeding which involves the submission of evidence, either by oral presentation or written submission, to the administrative law judge;
( i ) *Order* means the whole or any part of a final procedural or substantive disposition of a matter under ERISA section 502(c)(6);
( j ) *Party* includes a person or agency named or admitted as a party to a proceeding;
( k ) *Person* includes an individual, partnership, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, exchange or other entity or organization;
( l ) *Petition* means a written request, made by a person or party, for some affirmative action;
( m ) *Pleading* means the notice as defined in § 2560.502c-6(g) of this chapter, the answer to the notice, any supplement or amendment thereto, and any reply that may be permitted to any answer, supplement or amendment;
( n ) *502(c)(6) civil penalty proceeding* means an adjudicatory proceeding relating to the assessment of a civil penalty provided for in section 502(c)(6) of ERISA;
( o ) *Respondent* means the party against whom the Department is seeking to assess a civil sanction under ERISA section 502(c)(6);
( p ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor and includes, pursuant to any delegation of authority by the Secretary, any assistant secretary (including the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security), administrator, commissioner, appellate body, board, or other official; and
( q ) *Solicitor* means the Solicitor of Labor or his or her delegate.
#### § 4302.1 Purpose and scope.

This part specifies the maximum daily amount of penalties for which a person may be liable to the PBGC under ERISA section 4302 for certain failures to provide multiemployer plan notices, as such amount has been adjusted to account for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Pravia, LLC Petition to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 11167

Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0789

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

03 Aug 2015

Sir or Ma’am,

Pravia, LLC (Pravia) was issued Exemption No. 11167 to operate the eBee Ag

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) for the purpose of providing aerial imaging and surveying

. Pravia herby request s to amend the exemption to include the DJI Inspire 1 UAS (DJI Inspire).

The DJ I Inspire is similar in form and function to Pravia’s current approved UAS and has

already been approved for use in a number of current exemptions.

Pravia will ensure that all operations conducted with the DJI Inspire will meet the

Conditions and Limitations set forth within Exemption No. 11167 in addition to any new

conditions and/or limitations specified in the approval of this amendment. As required by the

Exemption, Pravia will ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with the DJI Inspire

Operating Docume nts

, which have been inc luded with this request.

DJI Inspire Operating Documents:

1. Inspire Quick Start Guide

2. I nspire User Manual

3. Inspire Maintenance Manual

4. Inspire Safety Guidelines

Because the requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any

issue, Pravia respect fully requests the FAA to consider an expeditious approval of this

amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards

,

Scott Brink

Managing Partner

555 Falcon Trail

Niceville FL 32578

970.310.1712

scott@praviallc.com
Order entered June 17, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00175

- CV

PATRICIA A. ERVING , Appellant

V.

GARLAND HOUSING AGENCY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 192 nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 15968

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 15, 2022 second motion for extension of

time to file her brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no

later than J uly 15, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 91 

Honoring Army Specialist Monica L. Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, extending gratitude to her and her family, and pledging continuing support 

for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2008 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring Army Specialist Monica L. Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, extending gratitude to her and her family, 

and pledging continuing support for the men and women 

of the United States Armed Forces. 

Whereas Monica Brown, a medic serving in the 782nd Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, was 

deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom; 

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces were 

attacked by a roadside bomb in the eastern Paktia province in Afghanistan on April 25, 2007; 

Whereas Specialist Monica L. Brown, at age 19, ran through 

insurgent gunfire to save the lives of fellow wounded solVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:57 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SC91.ATS SC91

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 91 ATS 

diers injured after the roadside bomb tore through their 

convoy of humvees; 

Whereas Monica Brown is 1 of 25,109 women currently serving in the Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 

1 of 350,000 women serving in the United States Army; 

Whereas Monica Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan 

and only the second female member of the Armed Forces 

since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation’s third-highest medal for valor; and 

Whereas the thoughts and prayers of Congress and the people of the United States remain with the families of all 

the members of the Armed Forces who are fighting to ensure the Nation’s freedom and safety: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors Monica L. Brown, a Specialist in the 

4 United States Army, who risked her life to save the 

5 lives of her fellow wounded soldiers while serving in 

6 the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan, and rec7 ognizes her for her bravery and heroism; 

8 (2) extends its deepest gratitude to Monica L. 

9 Brown and her family in Lake Jackson, Texas; and 

10 (3) pledges its continued support for the men 

11 and women of the United States Armed Forces. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
798 A.2d 1277

#### Robert C. BOLUS, Appellant, v. D. Michael FISHER, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Andrew Jarbola, District Attorney of the County of Lackawanna, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 19, 2002.

*601
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2002, the Order of the Commonwealth Court, dated October 28, 2001, is AFFIRMED.