alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 17-0038 - State ex rel. Healthport Technologies and CAMC v. The Honorable James Stucky and Basil Crookshanks 

### FILED June 15, 2017 released at 3:00 p.m. Workman, Justice, dissenting: RORY L. PERRY, II CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA The majority, usually slavishly devoted to statutory law, ignores a clear statute governing this issue. West Virginia Code § 16-29-1, providing guidelines for furnishing health care records, expressly provides that “[t]he provisions of this article may be enforced by a patient, authorized agent or authorized representative . . . .” Thus, the trial court was absolutely correct in ruling that Mr. Crookshanks could assert a violation of the reasonable fee standards of West Virginia Code § 16-29-2, despite the fact that the expense was advanced by his attorney, as is customary and perfectly proper. The statute prohibits excessive charges and specifies that “the person requesting records” shall “pay a reasonable, cost-based fee.” In this instance, the records were requested and paid for by Mr. Crookshanks’ lawyers. Lawyers routinely advance expenses for their clients; this is not an extraordinary or infrequent occurrence. Dismissing Mr. Crookshanks’ claim on that basis is ludicrous, utterly unwarranted, and legally wrong. It flies in the face of clear law and continues the majority march against consumer rights. Consequently, I respectfully dissent and likewise join in Justice Davis’ separately filed dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000004187
<NAME> INDUSTRIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,826,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,246,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                   266,980
<INVENTORY>                                  2,295,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,545,597
<PP&E>                                       9,190,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,961,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,340,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,086,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,575
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,306,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,340,641
<SALES>                                     43,786,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,786,987
<CGS>                                       40,496,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,496,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,656,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                424,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                   124,426
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            300,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   300,054
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
§ 105-69.300 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 105-69.100 (a), does not apply in the case of any reasonable payment to a person, other than an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action, if the payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) The reporting requirements in § 105-69.110 (a) and (b) regarding filing a disclosure form by each person, if required, shall not apply with respect to professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting or a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( d ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( e ) Persons other than officers or employees of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action include consultants and trade associations.
( f ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman BLAKE R. GILLUM

United States Air Force

ACM S32240

08 January 2015

Sentence adjudged 6 March 2014 by SPCM convened at Joint Base San 

Antonio-Lackland, Texas. Military Judge: Donald Eller, Jr. (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 60 days, and 

reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Katherine E. 

Oler.

Before

MITCHELL, WEBER, and CONTOVEROS

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT DAVID ORTIZ

Christopher S. Carver, Esq., Jason S. Oletsky, Esq., and Katherine A. Johnson, Esq., of the 

law firm Akerman LLP, hereby enter their appearances as counsel on behalf of Defendant David 

Ortiz and request that copies of all orders, process, pleadings, and other documents filed or served 

in this matter be served on them via CM/ECF or at the address listed below, as appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: January 24, 2023 AKERMAN LLP

201 East Las Olas Boulevard – Suite 1800

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2229

Tel.: 954-463-2700

Fax: 954-463-2224

By: /s/ Christopher S. Carver

Christopher S. Carver

Florida Bar No.: 993580

christopher.carver@akerman.com

Jason S. Oletsky, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 9301

jason.oletsky@akerman.com

Katherine A Johnson, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1040357

katie.johnson@akerman.com

Counsel for Defendant David Ortiz

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John A. Witham, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
         Metris Master Trust;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
         to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
         light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
         misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

     4.  Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
         in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
         with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and
         except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
         obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and

     5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
         the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these
         reports.

Date: March 30, 2004

                                      METRIS RECEIVABLES, INC., as
                                      originator of the Metris Master Trust

                                             /s/ John A. Witham
                                             -----------------------------------
                                      Name:  John A. Witham
                                      Title: President
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15822]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 19, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Pilot Grove Savings Bank ESOP, Pilot Grove, Iowa and Pilot 
Bancorp, Inc., Pilot Grove, Iowa; to acquire 100 percent of the voting 
shares of Farmers Savings Bank, Mount Pleasant, Iowa
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Commfirst Bancorporation, Inc., South Sioux City, Nebraska; to 
acquire 100 percent of Robuck, Inc., South Sioux City, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 19, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-15822 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Janine M. Lopez’s Unopposed Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs in this case (“Motion”). After careful consideration, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

1. The Motion is GRANTED.

2. Janine M. Lopez SHALL BE PERMITTED to withdraw and is hereby relieved 

of any further responsibility as counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. The Clerk is directed to remove 

Ms. Lopez from the CM/ECF electronic list of counsel to be served in this action. 

3. Plaintiffs continue to be represented by the remaining co-counsel of record. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this day of .

 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies provided to: 

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-
21189 and No. 333-07053 of Helisys, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our 
report dated November 21, 1997 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and 
includes an explanatory paragraph indicating that there are matters that raise 
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern), 
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Helisys, Inc. for the year 
ended July 31, 1998.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Los Angeles, California

November 11, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          32,524
<SECURITIES>                                    14,594
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,603
<INVENTORY>                                    446,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               881,014
<PP&E>                                         693,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,447,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          534,183
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        427
<COMMON>                                         2,005
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,447,920
<SALES>                                        997,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               997,357
<CGS>                                          783,810
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  783,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,973
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (634)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,339
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
        

</TABLE>
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
#### § 102-33.230 May we use military FSCAP on non-military FAA-type certificated Government aircraft?

You may use dual-use military FSCAP on non-military aircraft operated under restricted or standard airworthiness certificates if the parts are inspected and approved for such installation by the FAA. See detailed guidance in FAA Advisory Circular 20-142, Change (1), “Eligibility and Evaluation of U.S. Military Surplus Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Parts, Engines, and Propellers” (*http://www.faa.gov*).
Order entered September 4, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00559-CV

ANGELA EVANS, Appellant

V.

DAVID ARTHUR, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-00536-2014

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record. Appellant’s second notice of appeal indicates 

she desires to appeal an unspecified order dated April 25, 2014. The clerk’s record does not 

include any order signed on that date. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Stacey Kemp, Clerk of 

County Courts at Law of Collin County, to file within ten (10) days of the date of this order a 

supplemental clerk’s record including all post-judgment orders in the case.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Marilyn MURPHY, Appellant, v. Reginald MURPHY, Appellee.

No. 5D16-189.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 18, 2016.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 27, 2016.

Jeffrey A. Conner, Winter Garden, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

Marilyn Murphy appeals the trial court’s final judgment dissolving her marriage to Reginald Murphy. There is no transcript of the trial proceedings, nor a statement of evidence.1 Accordingly, although errors that appear on the face of the final judgment are reviewable on appeal, issues concerning evidentiary sufficiency are not. *Dennison v. Dennison,*852 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

We conclude that there are two errors on the face of the final judgment that require reversal. First, the final judgment fails to address the parties’ responsibility for healthcare expenses for the minor child that are not covered by health insurance. *See*§ 61.13(b), Fla. Stat. (2015); *see also Harris v. Harris,*114 So.3d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that trial court’s failure to address healthcare coverage for children and non-covered dental, medical, and prescription medication expenses required remand). Second, as reflected in paragraph twelve of the former wife’s unsuccessful motion for rehearing, the child support calculations are in error. The final judgment is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

1

. *See*Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4):

> (4) If no report of the proceedings was made, or if the transcript is unavailable, a party may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the party’s recollection. The statement shall be served on all other parties, who may serve objections or proposed amendments to it within 10 days of service. Thereafter, the statement and any objections or proposed amendments shall be filed with the lower tribunal for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement shall be included by the clerk of the lower tribunal in the record.