alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______ _________________ No. 17

- 1 1 784

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13

- cv - 62260

- JIC
NORMA OLMO, NELSON OLMO , Plaintiff s - Appellants ,

versus DAVOL, INC., C.R. BARD, INC. , Defendant s - Appellees

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (February 7, 2018) Before MARCUS , ANDERSON, and HULL , Circuit Judges.

Case: 17-11784 Date Filed: 02/07/2018 Page: 1 of 22 PER CURI AM: We have had the benefit of oral argument and have carefully reviewed the briefs and the summary judgment record in this case. The learned intermediary doctrine provides that the manufacturer’s duty to warn runs to the physician, not directly to the patient. If the physician had independent knowledge of the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injuries

– substantially the same knowledge as an adequate warning should have communicated

– then the plaintiff cannot prevail on a fail ure to

- warn claim. Christ opher v. Cutter Laboratories, 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (11 th Cir. 1995). We agree with the district court that the physician who implanted the instant patch had such independent knowledge. With respect to the patch that was imp lanted in plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence that the ring in the patch buckled. For the foregoing reasons, including reasons fully explained at oral argument, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Case: 17-11784 Date Filed: 02/07/2018 Page: 2 of 2
GAO-01-643R Former Members of Congress

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 27, 2001

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit

Reports for the Former Members of Congress for 1999 and 1998

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed the audit reports covering the financial statements of the

Former Members of Congress, a federally chartered corporation, for the years ended

December 31, 1999 and 1998. The corporation’s purpose is to promote the improved

public understanding of the Congress as an institution and representative democracy

as a system of government, both domestically and internationally.

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to

present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the

corporation’s income and expenses in annual financial statements,

obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and

submit the auditors’ report and the corporation’s financial statements to the

Congress.

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit reports complied

with the financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we

reviewed the corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes,

performed certain analytical procedures related to information presented in the

financial statements, reviewed the auditors’ reports, and made inquiries to

corporation officials or the auditors as we deemed necessary. We did not review the

auditors’ working papers. Our review disclosed no reportable instances of

noncompliance.
Page 2 GAO-01-643R Former Members of Congress

The audit reports included the auditors’ opinions that the financial statements of the

corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles. We are returning the audit reports you sent with your letter.

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff

Managing Director

Financial Management and Assurance

w/o Enclosures

(194023)
# C_2012235EN.01000601.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Lorenzo Ciampaglia v Sangita Masawan

(Case C-185/12)

2012/C 235/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Torre Annunziata

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lorenzo Ciampaglia

Applicant:

Defendant: Sangita Masawan

Defendant:

By order of 3 May 2012, the Court of Justice declared that the reference for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible and removed the case from the register.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Statement of Operations for the
Year Ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,560
<PP&E>                                       4,196,749
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,927,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,480,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,480,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,480,875
<SALES>                                        745,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               747,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               189,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                558,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            558,108
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   558,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    48.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    48.44
        

</TABLE>
#### BOARDWALK HOTELS CORPORATION, RELATOR, v. JOHN W. CONWAY, SUPERINTENDENT, ETC., ATLANTIC CITY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued January 16, 1929

Decided January 30, 1929.

Before Justices Mintubn, Black and Campbell.

Eor the relator, *Merritt Lane.*

Eor the defendants, *Joseph B. Pershie.*

Pee Cubiam.

A rule to show cause was allowed in this cause; wiry a writ of mandamus, alternative or peremptory, should not issue to the authorities of Atlantic City commanding them to issue to the relator a permit for the erection of an hotel, upon the property located _ in Atlantic City, known as the “Gordon Pier.”

Our reading of the depositions taken under the rule allowed in the case and to be used at the argument of the rule leads us to the conclusion that an alternative writ of *mandamus*should issue, and this will be the order of the court.
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-16-00477- CV In re F STI, I nc. ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N We deny rela tor’s petition for wr it of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Filed: Aug ust 26, 2016
Exhibit 99.01


        Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I,  the
undersigned  Chief  Executive Officer of  Pop  N  Go,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  hereby  certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the
Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q of the Company  for  the  quarter
ended  June  30,  2002  (the "Report") fully  complies  with  the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange  Act  of
1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the Company.


By:   /s/ Melvin Wyman
          ---------------
          Melvin Wyman
          Chief Executive Officer


Date:     August 15, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        ICY SPLASH FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC.
                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 Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
Aslan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. and will be retained by Icy Splash
Food & Beverage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  May 17, 2004


/s/ Joseph Aslan
Joseph Aslan
Chief Executive Officer
#### § 502.1 Scope of rules in this part.

The rules in this part govern procedure before the Federal Maritime Commission, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission,” under the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, Administrative Procedure Act, and related acts, except that subpart R of this part does not apply to proceedings subject to sections 7 and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which are to be governed only by subparts A to Q inclusive, of this part. They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding. To this end, all persons involved in proceedings conducted under the rules of this part shall be required to consider at an early stage of the proceeding whether resort to alternative dispute resolution techniques would be appropriate or useful. [Rule 1.]

[49 FR 44369, Nov. 6, 1984, as amended at 58 FR 38649, July 19, 1993; 64 FR 7807, Feb. 17, 1999]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending September 22, 2007

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|SUSQUEHANNA BANK  | * 18C          | Susquehanna Bank, Hagerstown, MD, to purchase  the assets and assume the liabilities of six branch offices of Susquehanna Bank PA, Lititz, PA, located at 1045 Mill Run Circle, Owings Mills, Baltimore County, MD; 10802 Red Run Blvd., Owings Mills, Baltimore County, MD; 275 Clifton Blvd., Westminster, Carroll County, MD; 4501 Hanover Pike, Manchester, Carroll County, MD; 8620 Snowden River Parkway, Columbia, Howard County, MD, 8801 Columbia 100 Parkway, Columbia, Howard County, MD. | Newspaper:10/19/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 10/19/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2012089EN.01001701.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/17

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission

Saupiquet v Commission

(Case C-37/12 P)

2012/C 89/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission;

Saupiquet

Commission

| — | Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought in the present appeal and those sought at first instance by the undertaking Saupiquet; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought in the present appeal and those sought at first instance by the undertaking Saupiquet;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, infringement by the General Court of the fundamental principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and, in consequence, of Articles 2 and 9 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Secondly, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, conferring power and, in particular, exclusive responsibility on the Union in respect of customs matters.

Thirdly, the appellant alleges infringement of Articles 247 and 247a of the Community Customs Code. (1)

1

Fourthly and lastly, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 975/2003. (2)

2

In fact, contrary to the findings of the General Court, it follows from the combined application of the texts referred to above that the Commission must be held liable for the negative consequences of the closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States and must take the measures necessary to remedy those consequences.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70 (OJ 2003 L 141, p. 1).

2

---
EXHIBIT 99.20

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
(the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake, Mineral Reserves and
Resources and Governance  Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 dated February 24, 2012 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year
ended December 31, 2011 dated February 9, 2012 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties,
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the
Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736,
333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, and registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan.

Sincerely,



|                     |  |                                                              
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David Bronkhorst
|Name:                |  | David Bronkhorst, P. Eng.                                    
|Title:               |  | Vice-President, Saskatchewan Mining South, Cameco Corporation
|                     | 
|Date:                |  | February 24, 2012
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1418

To prohibit United States foreign assistance for Russia unless the Government

of Russia prohibits the export of nuclear weapons equipment and related

technology and offensive military weapons, equipment, and related technology to terrorist states.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 5, 1995

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

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To prohibit United States foreign assistance for Russia unless the Government of Russia prohibits the export of

nuclear weapons equipment and related technology and

offensive military weapons, equipment, and related technology to terrorist states.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR RUSSIA.

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—The President may not provide

5 foreign assistance for Russia for any fiscal year unless the

6 President certifies to the Congress for such fiscal year that

7 the Government of Russia is not exporting nuclear weap-
2

•HR 1418 IH

1 ons equipment and related technology and offensive mili2 tary weapons, equipment, and related technology to a ter3 rorist state.

4 (b) REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUING COMPLI5 ANCE.—Any certification with respect to the Government

6 of Russia for a fiscal year under subsection (a) shall cease

7 to be effective for that fiscal year if the President certifies

8 to the Congress that such Government has not continued

9 to comply with the requirements contained in such sub10 section.

11 (c) WAIVER.—The prohibition on foreign assistance

12 for Russia under subsection (a) shall not apply if the

13 President determines and notifies the Congress that pro14 viding such assistance for Russia is in the national secu15 rity interest of the United States.

16 (d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

17 (1) FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.—The term ‘‘foreign

18 assistance’’ means assistance under the Foreign As19 sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), as20 sistance under the Freedom for Russia and Emerg21 ing Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Sup22 port Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), and as23 sistance or sales under the Arms Export Control Act

24 (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), except that such term does

25 not include—
3

•HR 1418 IH

1 (A) humanitarian assistance; or

2 (B) assistance for the purpose of disman3 tling and destroying nuclear weapons, chemical

4 weapons, and other weapons, and related assist5 ance.

6 (2) TERRORIST STATE.—The term ‘‘terrorist

7 state’’ means a country, the government of which

8 the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes

9 of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act

10 of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(6)(j)(1)), has repeat11 edly provided support for acts of international

12 terrorism.

13 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The prohibition on foreign

14 assistance under subsection (a) shall apply with respect

15 to fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 1995.

Æ