alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruben MILLS v. McDERMOTT FABRICATORS, INC., and the Travelers Insurance Co.

No. 8317.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 19, 1971.

John E. Coleman, Jr., of Aycock, Horne, Caldwell & Coleman, Franklin, for appellant.

Rene H. Himel, Franklin, for appellees.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

LANDRY, Judge.

This appeal presents the simple legal issue of whether the fee of a court appointed attorney, representing an injured employee in a compromise settlement of workmen’s compensation claims with the employer’s insurer, may be taxed as costs when the fee awarded exceeds the statutory maximum of $25.00 authorized to be taxed as costs pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1272. We amend the judgment of the trial court which taxed as costs such fees of more than $25.-00.

The facts are simple and undisputed. On July 20, 1970, plaintiff Mills, his employer, McDermott Fabricators, Inc., and McDermott’s insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, jointly petitioned the trial court for approval of a proposed agreement pursuant to which Mills would be paid $1,875.00, Cash, in addition to medical ex*203penses previously paid, in full compromise of compensation benefits allegedly due for injuries received in an accident which occurred October 6, 1969, in the course of Mills’ employment by McDermott.

As required by LSA-R.S. 23:1272, an attorney at law was appointed to represent Mills and advise him regarding the proposed compromise. The attorney approved the proposal and joined the parties in requesting the court’s sanction of the planned settlement. The trial court then entered judgment authorizing the compromise, fixing the fee of the court appointed attorney at $35.00, and taxing same as costs.

On two prior occasions, this court has held that the fee of the attorney appointed pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1272 may not be fixed in excess of the statute’s limits if it is taxed as costs.

LSA-R.S. 23:1272, as amended by Act 394 of 1966, in pertinent part reads as follows :

> “A reasonable fee for such services shall be fixed by the court and when taxed as costs, it shall not exceed the sum of twenty-five dollars.”

On two prior occasions this court has expressly held that the fee of an attorney appointed pursuant to subj ect statute may not exceed the statutory limit when it is taxed as costs. In the case of In Re Batiste, La.App., 182 So.2d 559, when the statutory limit was $15.00, we held that the attorney’s fee in instances of this nature could not be fixed at more than the sum provided in the statute if it was fixed as costs. In Re Skiruin, La.App., 211 So.2d 119, also decided by this court, followed Batiste, above, and held that a fee in excess of the present statutory limit of $25.00 was not properly taxable as costs.

We deem it unnecessary to repeat the reasons stated in our former decrees.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be and the same is hereby amended to reduce the fee of the court appointed attorney to represent Ruben Mills from the sum of $35.00 to $25.-00, and in such reduced' amount taxed as costs.

Amended and rendered.
<Page>

                       EXHIBIT 11 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                              WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING


                           Quarter Ended
                           June 30, 2002
<Table>
<S>                                                     <C>
Shares Outstanding March 31, 2002                          10,826,538
Additional shares issued June 24, 2002                         70,592


Shares Outstanding June 30, 2002                           10,897,130
                                                         ------------

Weighted average shares outstanding                        10,831,192
                                                         ------------

Net loss applicable to common stock
   for the three months June 30, 2002                     $  (850,000)
Net loss per share, applicable to common
   stock, basic and diluted                               $     (0.08)



                        Six Months Ended
                          June 30, 2002

Shares Outstanding December 31, 2001                      10,826,538
Additional shares issued June 24, 2002                        70,592

Shares outstanding June 30, 2002                          10,897,130
                                                         ------------

Weighted average shares outstanding                       10,828,878
                                                         ------------
Net loss applicable to common stock
   for the six months June 30, 2002                      $(1,718,000)
Net loss per share, applicable to common
   stock, basic and diluted                              $     (0.16)
</Table>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP94-43-015]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Motion To Place Rates Into Effect

October 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 17, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing a ``Motion of ANR Pipeline Company for Expeditous 
Approval to Place Rates into Effect Pending Approval of Settlement, and 
Request for Shortened Response Time.''
    ANR states that the purpose of such motion is to obtain Commission 
approval to place lower rates into effect pending Commission action on 
a concurrently filed offer of settlement in the captioned proceeding, 
subject to certain conditions.
    ANR states that copies of this filing have been mailed to all 
persons designated on the Restricted Service List, intervenors, 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. The notice period will be shortened 
so that all such protests must be filed on or before October 24, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28341 Filed 10-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         61,977,165
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,254,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (816,964)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               77,387,662
<PP&E>                                         24,787,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,374,272)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,372,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41,483,899
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       204,116,720
<OTHER-SE>                                     (60,747,815)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,372,038
<SALES>                                        22,842,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,842,869
<CGS>                                          17,983,574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,983,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               24,486,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,103,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,103,549)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,103,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.96)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.96)
<FN>
<F1>  EPS PRIMARY IS NOW BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            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 ViaVid Broadcasting Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Brian
Kathler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.



/s/ Brian Kathler
-----------------




Brian Kathler
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2005
#### Deodies HAYNES, Jr., and Dorothy E. Haynes, his wife, Appellants, v. Ira D. MADISON and Christine Madison, his wife, Appellees.

No. 42930.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 22, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, James B. Boyd, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of ESS Technology, Inc.;
      and

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.

Date: April 29, 2004

                                             /s/ JAMES B. BOYD
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                               James B. Boyd
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### M. I. ROBBINS, Appellant, v. FULTON SAVINGS BANK KINGS COUNTY, a New York banking corporation, Diosado H. Villafane and Esmeralda S. Villafane, Appellees.

No. 70-623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 27, 1971.

John D. Kruse, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

*178John D. Brion of Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth, Miami, for appellee Fulton Savings Bank.

Stephen W. Toothaker of Berryhill, Avery, Schwenke & Williams, Fort Lauder-dale, for Appellees Villafane.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a judicial foreclosure sale. On the basis of our review of the briefs and record on appeal, and after oral argument, we are of the opinion that the action of the trial court was a proper exercise of its discretion and that the appellant has failed to make error clearly appear. See Southern Realty & Util. Corp. v. Belmont Mtg. Corp., Fla.1966, 186 So.2d 24, and R. K. Cooper Construction Company v. Fulton, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 11.

The final judgment from which this appeal is taken is therefore affirmed.

WALDEN, OWEN, and MAGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

           [NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]


           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

     We hereby consent to the references to Netherland, Sewell & Associates,
Inc. and to the use of its reports listed below regarding the Burlington
Resources Coal Seam Gas Royalty Trust proved reserves and estimated Section 29
tax credits in the Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed by the Burlington
Resources Coal Seam Gas Royalty Trust with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

          1.  Report dated March 25, 1994 for reserves as of
              December 31, 1993.

          2.  Report dated March 15, 1995 for reserves as of
              December 31, 1994.

          3.  Report dated March 16, 1995 for estimated Section 29
              tax credits as of December 31, 1994.

          4.  Report dated March 18, 1996 for reserves as of
              December 31, 1995.

          5.  Report dated March 19, 1996 for estimated Section 29
              tax credits as of December 31, 1995.

          6.  Report date March 20, 1997 for reserves as of December 31, 1996.

          7.  Report dated March 21, 1997 for estimated Section 29 tax credits 
              as of December 31, 1995.

                                           NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                           By: /s/ Danny D. Simmons
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Danny D. Simmons
                                              Senior Vice President

Houston, Texas
March 28, 1997
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RALPH COLLINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-JBF-TEM-4; 2:07-CV-00344-JBF) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ralph Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Collins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Collins’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Virgil P. SPIRES, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF the DEPT. OF COMMERCE and the Central Florida Flood Control District, Respondents.

No. 77-1483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1978.

N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. of Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., Fort Pierce, for petitioner.

Thomas J. Schwartz and Robert Grafton, West Palm Beach, for respondent-South Florida Water Management District.

*737PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
December 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Varian,
Inc.



Dated: February 5, 2007



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|/S/ G. EDWARD MCCLAMMY                                                         
|G. Edward McClammy Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



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

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48662-48663]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-46]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Atomic Testing Museum, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, 
Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Rupp, Board Administrator, 232 
Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 657-
9088; Fax (702) 295-5300 or e-mail: ntscab@nv.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations

[[Page 48663]]

to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental 
restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:
    1. Update from Transportation/Waste Committee.
    2. Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan Development.
    3. Election of Officers.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada Test Site, welcomes the 
attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will 
make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or 
special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact Denise Rupp at least seven days in advance 
of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may 
be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Denise Rupp at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Denise Rupp at the 
address listed above or at the following Web site: http://www.ntscab.com/MeetingMinutes.htm.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 5, 2010.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-19786 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### John C. BALLARD and James B. Ennis, Appellants, v. Edna M. COOK, Appellee. John C. BALLARD and James B. Ennis, Appellants, v. Ida FINCH, Appellee.

Nos. M-223, M-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 1970.

H. O. Pemberton, of Keen, O’Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Woods & Johnston, Tallahassee, for ap-pellees.

*439PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
CHART-SeQual 

Technologies Inc.

Suite 500

2200 Airport Industrial Drive

Ball Ground, GA 30107

Phone: 770.721.7700 Fax: 770.721.7701

www.chart-ind.com

 

DK Deaderick, ASI

Federal Aviation Administration

Air Transportation Division

121 Air Carrier Operations Branch

Survival Factors Project Team Leader

Justification for the decision not to file a 510(k) 

after change to a legally marketed device

Ref: "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a change to an Existing Device (K97-1)" from the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, January 10, 1997, Main Flowchart, p. 28, Flowchart A, p.29, 

and Flowchart B, p. 30.

Dear Ms./Mrs. DK Deaderick,

As part of the development of the Oxywell Oxygen System, it was necessary to determine whether a new 

510(k) was required to market this device. The reference document above was used to make this 

determination. The Oxywell Oxygen System is based on the same concept as the existing eQuinox 

Oxygen System design. The Oxywell Oxygen System is a privately branded eQuinox per the customer's 

request for privately labeled eQuinox Oxygen System. 

Referring to the Main Flowchart item 1, the change to the Oxywell Oxygen System was not due to a recall 

or corrective action. Changes were made to satisfy a customer's request for a privately labeled oxygen 

system.

Flowchart A shows the justification for the labeling change per item A5. All labels will change to indicate 

the Oxywell model name and will be written in Japanese. The label has been revised for clarity of use to

show the item is the Oxywell Oxygen System.

Flowchart B shows the justification for the performance changed per item B8. The Oxywell will have 

additional voice notifications that occur in parallel to the led and/or alarm indications already present in 

the baseline Equinox Software.

Finally Materials used in the Oxywell Oxygen System are the same as the materials used in the eQuinox

Oxygen System. The size and configuration of all the components are the same.

All flowcharts lead to the conclusion that only documentation is necessary for the change to this device. 

No new 510(k) is required. The change indicated here does not affect safety, effectiveness, or intended 

use of this product.

Regards, 

Neal Maloy

Director of Quality and Regulatory Affairs
28

MAIN FLOWCHART

 WHEN TO FILE A 510(k) AFTER CHANGE TO

 A LEGALLY MARKETED DEVICE
29
30
#### STATE v. Henry MANN.

No. 37616.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 209 So.2d 472.