alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHELE RICCI : CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v. : No. 02-4330

:

:

AETNA, INC. d/b/a AETNA U.S. :

HEALTHCARE and AETNA LIFE :

INSURANCE COMPANY :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2005, it is ORDERED that oral argument on the

cross-motions for summary judgment is scheduled for Thursday, August 11, 2005, at 2:00

p.m., in Courtroom 15B.

The parties shall be prepared to address (where appropriate, with citations to the

record) the following issues:

1. What standard of review governs?

2. What is the relationship among Aetna, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company

and Covance?

3. Who made the ultimate determination to terminate benefits – Aetna or

Covance?

4. Was the plaintiff under the care of a physician “for” a disabling condition? If

so, what?

5. Is Dr. Schwartz a physician under the policy?

6. Is a patient treating with a physician for the “sequelae” of a physical condition

under the care of a physician?

7. Did the claims administrator or appeal team member involved in considering

Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 46 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 1 of 2
of Ricci’s claim know what the word “sequelae” meant?

8. Did Ricci’s depression cause the disabling condition?

9. Is there any dispute that Ricci’s depression was caused by chronic fatigue

syndrome?

10. What is the effect, if any, of Aetna’s having paid disability benefits for

approximately six years based on the presence of a physical disability, chronic fatigue

syndrome?

11. Did Aetna’s failure to order the blood tests requested by its own physician

constitute an anomaly?

12. Did Aetna’s failure to consult the original physician, whom it had retained to

perform an evaluation, to follow up his evaluation as he had suggested constitute a

procedural anomaly?

13. Did Aetna’s failure to obtain the requisite blood tests before making its final

determination, after its own doctor requested them, constitute a procedural anomaly?

 /s/ 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 46 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 20
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 175-4 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>         0001051488
<NAME>        FIRST DELTAVISION, INC.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            41456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           335
<OTHER-SE>                                      (41791)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

July 25, 1945

No. 50376.

#### Protest 54519-K of Altman & Kuhne, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on thé day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01103-PBT Document 118 Filed 12/31/08 Page 9 of 9
J. 

consecutive sentences, and we decline Estes' invitation to compel such a 

requirement. See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 333, 996 P.2d 890, 

893 (2000) (noting that "this court has never required the district courts to 

utter 'talismanic' phrases" and instead "looks to the record as a whole to 

determine whether the sentencing court actually exercised its discretion"). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, Houk v. 

State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
November 20, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VALDEMAR BAUTISTA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00457

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 99.1

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 National Equipment Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Gullion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



/s/JOSEPH M. GULLION

Joseph
M. Gullion
Joseph M. Gullion
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2000 and the consolidated statement of
operations for the six months ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       256,216,131
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             256,216,131
<CASH>                                      43,789,966
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         118,374,365
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                     182,100,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,142,821,504
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            153,662,253
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                    1,569,618,540
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,499,999
<OTHER-SE>                                 383,381,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,142,821,504
<PREMIUMS>                                  73,914,378
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         52,616,929
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                         (2,980,705)
<OTHER-INCOME>                               3,396,958
<BENEFITS>                                  62,856,415
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 16,590,879
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        11,804,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,636,061
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,636,061
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
August 30, 1951

No. 55845.

Suit 4654.

#### Khosrovschahi & Co. *v.*United States.

Abstract 54347 affirmed June 5, 1951. C. A. D. 460.
# C_2017221EN.01002301.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

(Case T-375/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 221/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Crabbe, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

1

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-1002 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-033-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER 7 ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE; AND JODI H. BROWN, M.D. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2004, after conducting a settlement conference with

counsel in the above-captioned action on June 1, 2004, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Discovery is extended ninety (90) days, or until August 30, 2004.

2. A Telephone Status Conference is scheduled for August 31, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. to

determine whether discovery has been completed, to set a time frame for dispositive motions and

to explore the possibility of a resolution of the matter. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate this

conference call to (215) 597-6079.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 55 Filed 06/03/2004 Page 1 of 1
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 1 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 2 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 3 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 4 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 5 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 6 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 7 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 8 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 9 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 10 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 11 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 12 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

   

Page 13 of 14
VISTAS Bylaws and MOU

Regional Haze SIP for Florida

Page 14 of 14
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Annual Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Crucell N.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-Ffairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  April 6,2010

 

 
|   | By:                            | /s/ Ronald  H.P. Brus |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Ronald H.P. Brus         |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Dated:  April 6,2010

 

 
|   | By:                            | /s/ Leonard  Kruimer |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Leonard Kruimer          |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 153 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 153 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 153 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 153 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION

I, Michael P. McHugh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended September 29, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect
to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this  report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such
evaluation;

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 23, 2007

/s/ MICHAEL P. MCHUGH	 Michael P. McHugh
  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---