alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50686

Summary Calendar

 

DAVID JOHNSTON, Individually and as 

representative of the Estate of 

Richard J. Johnston; GLORIA JOHNSTON,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CV-110

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David and Gloria Johnston appeal the take-nothing judgment

dismissing their wrongful death claims, filed under the Federal

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, based on

cardiac surgery performed on the decedent, Richard Johnston, by

the Government’s agents at the Brooke Army Medical Center. The

Johnstons alleged that the operating surgeon, Dr. Greg Bowman,

had negligently damaged Johnston’s phrenic nerves during the
No. 97-50686

-2-

cardiac surgery, thereby paralyzing Johnston’s diaphragm and

causing his subsequent death. After conducting a bench trial,

the district court held that the Johnstons did not meet their

burden of proving that Dr. Bowman had caused Johnston’s death and

had breached the required standard of care.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear

error, and conclusions of law de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a);

Hayes v. United States, 899 F.2d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 1990). After

reviewing the evidence, we do not have a definite and firm

conviction that the district court mistakenly found no negligence

on the part of the government’s agents. Consequently, we may not

overturn the district court’s ruling denying the Johnstons relief

on their negligence claims. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer

City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). The district court also did not

err in rejecting the Johnstons’ spoliation assertion since they

point to no facts showing that the government’s agents

intentionally or negligently destroyed evidence. See Brewer v.

Dowling, 862 S.W.2d 156, 159-60 (Tex. App. 1993, writ denied). 

The district court’s refusal to apply the doctrine of res ipsa

loquitur was proper since laymen do not generally comprehend the

techniques of CABG surgery. See Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d

948, 951 (Tex. 1990). Finally, our review indicates that the

district court did not misapply the FTCA and did not create a

subjective exception of unavoidable accident to the standard of

care for surgeons.
No. 97-50686

-3-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Jose BARED et al., Appellants, v. MIAMI PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 77-1935 and 77-1936.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1978.

Heiman & Heiman and Norman J. Silber, Miami, for appellants.

Paul & Thomson and James W. Beasley, Jr. and Dennis J. Olle, Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and Henry Burnett, Robert M. Sondak, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are presented here with an interlocutory appeal and a full appeal from an order dissolving a limited partnership pursuant to Section 620, Florida Statutes (1975).

The burden of respondent-appellants’ attack is that they had alleged certain defenses: (1) waiver of right to proceed for dissolution, (2) equitable estoppel of petitioners to proceed for dissolution, and (3) an implied agreement not to proceed for dissolution. It affirmatively appears from this record that the issues attempted to be raised are merely “paper issues.” The un-controverted evidence in its entirety supports the trial judge’s determination that there was nothing in the affidavits or depositions to support a genuine issue of material fact on any of the purported issues. We, therefore, affirm the summary final judgment upon the principles stated in *Johnson**168v. *Studstill,*71 So.2d 251 (Fla.1954); and *Edgewater Drugs, Inc. v. Jax Drugs, Inc.,*138 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)..

Affirmed.
| Skip Navigation | Accessibility enhancement features requireJavascript |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------|

**Transcript: "Medicare Part D:Prescription Drug Coverage"**

The Newman familyis sitting around the family computer. They are the father, Dan, 65years old, his wife Jean, their son Mark, and daughter-in-law,Beth. Dan recently became entitled to Medicare. He and his familyare discussing the Medicare program and some resources on theMedicare website at www.medicare.gov to help Dan understand hisMedicare options.

Dan: What is thisPart D? And, and can I get Part D to help pay for myprescriptions?

Beth: Yeah, um,Medicare prescription drug coverage is available to everyone withMedicare. Now the prescription drug plan finder lets you find theplan that is right for you. It helps you compare prescription drugplans to find the one that meets your needs and it even offersbrand name and generic drugs.

Dan: Great. I knowusing generic drugs saves me money. How does it work?

Beth: Oh, it'sreally simple. Medicare prescription drug plans provide insurancecoverage for prescription drugs. Like other insurance, if you joinyou'll pay a monthly premium that varies by plan and a share of thecost of your prescription drugs. I mean, Dad, like everything else,the cost and the coverage are going to vary depending on the planyou choose.

Mark: Show Mom andDad that amazing online tool to help people with Medicare choose aprescription plan under Part D. What's the name again?

Beth: You mean theMedicare prescription drug plan finder.

Announcer: Use thedrug plan finder to compare plans and consider: costs -- themonthly premium, deductible and share of the cost you pay for yourprescriptions; list of covered drugs or formulary can vary by plan;convenience -- drug plans work with some but not necessarily allpharmacies in every area. Some plans may have a list of preferredpharmacies and also have a mail order option. Customer service --the drug plan finder allows you to compare each plan's performanceand telephone customer service, complaints, sharing informationwith pharmacists, and drug pricing.
**EXHIBIT
23**









**CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-15167 and 33-82172 of State Bancorp, Inc., on Form S-8 of our reports dated
March 11, 2005, relating to the financial statements of State Bancorp, Inc.
and **** to
management’s report on **** the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in and
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of State Bancorp,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.









s/Deloitte
& Touche LLP


Philadelphia,
PA


March 14,
2005
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1318 

To protect State and Federal judges by clarifying that Federal judicial 

immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2005 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To protect State and Federal judges by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by 

judges pursuant to legal authority. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 21 of title 28, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 464. Judicial immunity for administrative func8 tions 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), a jus10 tice or judge of the United States or a State judge shall 
2 

•S 1318 IS

1 have immunity against any Federal civil cause of action 

2 respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitu3 tionally authorized duty, except for actions involving mal4 ice. 

5 ‘‘(b) OTHER IMMUNITY.—This section shall not pre6 empt any Federal or State law providing immunity in ad7 dition to the immunity provided by this section.’’. 

8 (b) CHAPTER ANALYSIS.—The chapter analysis for 

9 chapter 21 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘Sec. 464. Judicial immunity for administrative functions.’’. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sim Fass, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:  | /s/ Sim Fass                                      |   |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|      | Sim Fass  Chief Executive Officer  April 29, 2004 |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SavientPharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2014315EN.01001302.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no1 de Benidorm — Spain) — Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández and Others v Puntal Arquitectura SL and Others

o

(Case C-198/13) (1)

1

((Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Scope - Employer’s right to compensation from a Member State in respect of the remuneration paid to an employee during proceedings challenging that employee’s dismissal beyond the 60th working day after the action challenging the dismissal was brought - No right to compensation in the case of invalid dismissals - Subrogation of the employee to the right to compensation of his employer in the event of that employer’s provisional insolvency - Discrimination against employees who are the subject of an invalid dismissal - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Article 20))

2014/C 315/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social no1 de Benidorm

o

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández, Chems Eddine Adel, Jaime Morales Ciudad, Bartolomé Madrid Madrid, Martín Selles Orozco, Alberto Martí Juan, Said Debbaj

Applicants:

Defendants: Puntal Arquitectura SL, Obras Alteamar SL, Altea Diseño y Proyectos SL, Ángel Muñoz Sánchez, Vicente Orozco Miro, Subdelegación del Gobierno de España en Alicante

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which an employer can request from the Member State concerned payment of remuneration which has become due during proceedings challenging a dismissal after the 60th working day following the date on which the action was brought and according to which, where the employer has not paid that remuneration and finds itself in a state of provisional insolvency, the employee concerned may, by operation of legal subrogation, claim directly from that State the payment of that remuneration, does not come within the scope of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer and cannot, therefore, be examined in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, of Article 20 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification - CEO

I, Yao Qitai, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pingchuan
Pharmaceutical, Inc.;

     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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;

     4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
small business issuer and 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 on
such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

     a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 11, 2006                /s/ Yao Qitai
                                     ----------------------------------
                                     Yao Qitai, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2023264EN.01003701.xml

| 27.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/37

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 July 2023

appointing one alternate member of the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the Netherlands

(2023/C 264/05)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/128 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates for appointment submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States and by the employees’ and the employers’ organisations,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 28 March 2023 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Management Board of Cedefop for the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2027. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 28 March 2023 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Management Board of Cedefop for the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2027.

| (2) | The employers’ organisation BusinessEurope has submitted a nomination for one post to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The employers’ organisation BusinessEurope has submitted a nomination for one post to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following person is appointed alternate member of the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the period ending on 31 March 2027:

| | REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS’ ORGANISATIONS






  Member State | Alternate member |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Netherlands | Ms Eva VAN DER BOOM |

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS’ ORGANISATIONS

Member State

Alternate member

Netherlands

Ms Eva VAN DER BOOM

Article 2

The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 2023.

For the Council

The President

L. PLANAS PUCHADES

---

(1)  OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 90.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 28 March 2023 appointing members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (OJ C 116, 31.3.2023, p. 15).

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21381]



[[Page 43140]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH104-3b; FRL-5874-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio Ozone 
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 14, 1997, EPA published a direct final rule (62 FR 
26396) approving, and an accompanying proposed rule (62 FR 26463), 
proposing to approve a revision submitted on July 9, 1996 and January 
31, 1997, to the ozone maintenance plans for the Dayton-Springfield 
Area (Miami, Montgomery, Clark, and Greene Counties), Toledo Area 
(Lucas and Wood Counties), Canton area (Stark County), Ohio portion of 
the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area (Mahoning and Trumbell Counties), 
Columbus Area (Franklin, Delaware, and Licking Counties), Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain Area (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Summit, 
Portage, and Geauga Counties), Preble County, Jefferson County, 
Columbiana and Clinton Counties. The revision was based on a request 
from the State of Ohio to revise the federally approved maintenance 
plan for those areas to provide the State and the affected areas with 
greater flexibility in choosing the appropriate ozone contingency 
measures for each area in the event such a measure is needed. On June 
13, 1997 (62 FR 32257) EPA announced a 60-day extension of the public 
comment period until August 12, 1997. The EPA is announcing an 
additional 120-day extension of the public comment period on the May 
14, 1997, proposed rule. In the rules section of this Federal Register, 
EPA is extending the effective date of the related final rule to allow 
for an additional 120-day extension of the public comment period on 
these maintenance plans.

DATES: Written comments on the May 14, 1997, proposed rule must be 
received by December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), at the 
address below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 
Regulation Development Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Telephone: (312) 886-6084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the final 
rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 5, 1997.
Jo Lynn Traub,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-21381 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2300

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA94-1541-S) Argued: June 5, 1997 Decided: July 18, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Lauri Elizabeth Cleary, LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Anthony Linn Meagher, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stanley J. Reed, LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, forAppellant. Charles P. Scheeler, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas A. Doyle, William M. Sneed, BAKER & MCKENZIE, Chicago, Illinois; Susan E. Woods, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: When this case was on appeal the first time, we affirmed the dismissal of Fidelity's claims against Chicago Title for conversion and unjust enrichment, but we remanded for further proceedings onFidelity's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy. See Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. , No. 94-2308 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 1995). On remand the district court, after allowing further discovery, granted Chicago Title's separate motions for summary judgment on the two remaining claims. Fidelity appeals from the judgment order entered August 13, 1996. After considering the joint appendix, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's two opinions. See Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. , Civil No. S-94-1541 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 1996), and Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. , Civil No. S-94-1541 (D. Md. Aug. 13, 1996).

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Ex parte Alan Nelson Crotts

Appellate case number: 01-18-00666-CR

Trial court case number: 13-CCR-165781

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 3 of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: December 2, 2019

Party filing motion: Appellant

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Modify Judgment,” which we construe as a motion for 

rehearing. It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss___

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

Date: ___December 12, 2019___