alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shirley SHONTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-3903.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 10, 2005.

Michael Depree, Wells & Bowman, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas A. Krause, West Des Moines, IA, William C. Purdy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal, a panel of this court held that Appellant Shirley Shontos was entitled to Disabled Widow’s Benefits. *729
      *Shontos v. Barnhart,*328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.2003). Subsequently, Shontos filed for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Commissioner of Social Security denied Shontos’s request for attorney’s fees and the district court affirmed, finding that although Shontos eventually prevailed in her request for Disabled Widow’s Benefits, the Commissioner was substantially justified in denying benefits to Shontos.

Shontos is entitled to attorney’s fees unless “the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner’s denial of attorney’s fees is substantially justified if the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos was *“clearly reasonable,*well founded in law and fact, solid though not necessarily correct.” *S.E.C. v. Kluesner,*834 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting *United States v. 1,878.65 Acres of Land,*794 F.2d 1313, 1318 (8th Cir.1986)) (emphasis in original). A district court’s order affirming the denial of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Id.*at 1439.

“[T]he most powerful indicator of the reasonableness of the government’s position is the rationale of the court’s majority opinion in the first appeal.” *Lauer v. Barnhart,*321 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir.2003). In the first appeal, this court reversed the district court because it gave insufficient weight to adverse evidence in the record. *Shontos,*328 F.3d at 421-24, 425-27. Although this court ordered that Shontos be awarded disability benefits, the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos, though incorrect, was reasonable. The government’s position was supported by evidence in the record, and at the time the government chose to deny benefits to Shontos, “reasonable people could differ as to [the appropriateness of the contested action].” *Pierce v. Underwood,*487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (citations omitted); *see also Lauer,*321 F.3d at 765 (finding that the government’s position lacked “any evidence in its support”).

Accordingly, Shontos is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA, and the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000102438
<NAME> USP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,809,854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  581,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                   226,931
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,442,463 
<PP&E>                                      40,722,496
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,747,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,577,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,091,359 
<BONDS>                                     13,813,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,880,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,792,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,577,328
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,120,105
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,854,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               492,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,039,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                733,396
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            733,396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   733,396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel SANABRIA-CIREROL, aka Alberto Cabatu-Sanabria, aka Luis Fernando Encinas-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10083.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*856Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Michael T. Morrissey, Esq., USPX—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald W. Macpherson, Esq., The Maepherson Group, PC, Glendale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Sanabria-Cirerol appeals his conviction and 57-month sentence following a guilty plea for illegal re-entry after deportation and illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 922.

Pursuant to *Anders v.*California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Sanabria-Cirerol has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The clerk shall file Sanabria-Cirerol’s pro se supplemental brief received on February 18, 2005. The government has not filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. We affirm the conviction.

Because appellant was sentenced under then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.

Conviction AFFIRMED and sentence REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of United Refining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 20, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis   
|                      |  |     |  | John A. Catsimatidis       
|                      |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer



|                      |  |     |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 20, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy        
|                      |  |     |  | James E. Murphy            
|                      |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
AMENDMENT
 TO
 EXECUTIVE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION/
 CAPITAL
ACCUMULATION PLANS
 
  WHEREAS, Walgreen Co. (the “Company”)
maintains the Walgreen Co. 1986 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital
Accumulation Plan, the Walgreen Co. 1988 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital
Accumulation Plan, the Walgreen Co. 1992 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital
Accumulation Plan Series I, the Walgreen Co. 1992 Executive Deferred
Compensation/Capital Accumulation Plan Series II, the Walgreen Co. 1997
Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital Accumulation Plan Series I, the Walgreen
Co. 1997 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital Accumulation Plan Series II,
the Walgreen Co. 2001 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital Accumulation Plan,
and the Walgreen Co. 2002 Executive Deferred Compensation/Capital Accumulation
Plan, and various Supplements thereto (each, a “Plan” and collectively, the
“Plans”); and
  WHEREAS,
it is now deemed desirable to amend the Plans, effective as of January 1, 2009,
to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
  NOW, THEREFORE, each Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of January 1, 2009, as follows:
  1.
 By adding the following new paragraph to the end of Paragraph 4,
Subsection C (Payment Upon Termination):
  “All
payments shall be made within 90 days following such termination of employment;
provided, however, if the participant is a “specified employee” within the
meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”) at the time payment is to be made, then to the extent required under
Code Section 409A, payment shall be delayed until the date which is six months
after the participant’s separation from service.”
  2. 
By deleting the phrase “as soon as practicable” where it appears in Paragraph 7,
Subsection C of the Plan, and substituting the phrase “as soon as practicable
(and within 90 days)” therefor.
  3. 
By deleting the last sentence of Paragraph 9 (Disability), and substituting the
following new sentence therefor:
  “For
purposes of this Section, “disability” shall mean that the participant is unable
to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in
death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months, as determined in the sole discretion of the Committee.”
  4. 
By deleting the penultimate sentence of Paragraph 21 (Termination at the
Employer’s Option) and substituting the following new sentences
therefor:
  “Any
termination of this Plan shall comply with the requirements of Code Section
409A.  Upon termination of the Plan, the sole amount payable to a
participant shall be a lump sum payment, which shall be made within the time
period prescribed under Code Section 409A and applicable regulations issued
thereunder.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LOEWS CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
<CURRENCY>    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                         1
<CASH>                                                             31,735
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      17,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                         5,148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   60,228
<PP&E>                                                          1,587,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    369,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  1,907,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             213,851
<BONDS>                                                           839,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                              587
<OTHER-SE>                                                        618,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    1,907,389
<SALES>                                                           243,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  930,423
<CGS>                                                              38,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     732,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  174,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 72,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (49,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        1,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (51,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (51,390)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (0.88)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8845]



[[Page 26349]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-413-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets with a proposed effective date of June 1, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 227
Second Revised Sheet No. 228
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 229
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 538
Original Sheet No. 538A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 539
Second Revised Sheet No. 540

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7a796e7f7352505552596f494c4c534e487c5a594e5f125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8845 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1278 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1278

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                        indoor tanning services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2011

   Ms. Snowe (for herself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
Blunt, and Mr. Barrasso) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                        indoor tanning services.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON INDOOR TANNING SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking chapter 49 and by striking the item relating to 
such chapter in the table of chapters of such subtitle.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to services performed after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1
------------

                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

              (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
                        of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the
undersigned officer of SonomaWest Holdings,  Inc., a California corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby certify that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company  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 Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations of the Company.


Dated: May 13, 2003


                                  /s/ Roger S. Mertz
                                -----------------------------------------
                                Roger S. Mertz
                                Chairman of the Board


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


                                       20
<PAGE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002895 24-OCT-2013 07:55 AM
Exhibit 15.1





INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117241) pertaining to the Fundtech Ltd. 1997 Israeli Share Option Plan for the Employees of Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd. 1999 Employee Option Plan, and the Fundtech Ltd. Directors’ Option Plan, of our reports dated May 31, 2011, relating to the financial statements of Fundtech Ltd. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion), and the effectiveness of Fundtech Ltd.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Fundtech Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Brightman Almagor Zohar & CoBRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR ZOHAR & COCertified Public AccountantsA member of Deloitte Touche TohmatsuTel-Aviv, IsraelMay 31, 2011
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 28.3
Report of Independent Accountants

March 15, 2000

To the Board of Directors of
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.


We have examined management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables, included in the
accompanying Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized
Automobile Financing Receivables.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control over servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of the internal control, and such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables, is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------