alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Reciprocal Insurance Association, Appellant, v. Charles L. COTTER, also known as Charles Lee Cotter, Appellee.

No. L-436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 25, 1969.

*703Mercer P. Spear, Panama City, for appellant.

Logue, Bennett & Williams, Panama City, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO REMAND

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this court upon a motion of appellant to remand this cause, now pending on appeal in this court on the merits, to the lower court in order that the material matters affecting the validity of the judgment under appeal, may be considered by the lower court. In order for this to transpire, it is necessary for this court to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction of this court to the lower court for such purpose.

It appears to us from the motion and exhibits attached thereto, that there was one joint judgment in the accident case against two joint tort-feasors. The judgment holder proceeded in separate actions against each tort-feasor, or their insurers, for collection of the judgment. It now appears that $22,000 plus has been paid by one of the tort-feasors, on a total judgment of $26,317.94. This payment having been made subsequent to the final judgment entered against the appellant herein, and after appeal taken, the lower court was without power to do any thing about such payment.

In view of the fact that the payment on the joint judgment by one tort-feasor does activate the provision of the appellant’s insurance policy Section 5(d) (1), and in order for the lower court to be authorized to modify its final judgment against the appellant herein in view of the subsequent happening, this court does hereby temporarily relinquish its jurisdiction to the lower court, and said cause is remanded to said court for further proceedings consistent with the contentions of the appellant in its motion to remand. It is further ordered that the appellant be allowed to supplement its Assignment of Errors, Directions to the Clerk and Designation to Reporter, as it may deem necessary to properly process its appeal to this court.

Remanded with directions.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7799 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7799

  To designate a portion of United States Route 80 in Alabama as the 
    ``John R. Lewis Voting Rights Highway'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2020

    Mr. Cohen (for himself, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
Aderholt, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Roby, Mr. 
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Carson of Indiana, 
Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Cooper, Mr. 
Cox of California, Ms. Dean, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Evans, Mr. 
 Green of Texas, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Lee of California, 
   Ms. Kaptur, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Khanna, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Moore, Mr. McEachin, Mrs. Murphy of 
Florida, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rush, Mr. Woodall, Ms. Wilson 
 of Florida, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Shalala, 
   Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Takano, Mr. Vela, Mr. 
Welch, Mr. Soto, Mr. Case, Mr. Cicilline, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Espaillat, 
   Mr. Garamendi, and Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate a portion of United States Route 80 in Alabama as the 
    ``John R. Lewis Voting Rights Highway'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING PORTION OF UNITED STATES ROUTE 80.

    (a) Designation.--The portion of United States Route 80 from Selma, 
Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama shall be known as the ``John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Highway''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the portion of United 
States Route 80 from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama is deemed to 
be a reference to the ``John R. Lewis Voting Rights Highway''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11164 Summary Calendar

Rita Renee Jones Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus Marvin T. Runyon Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:93-CV-1511-R)

March 17, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jones brings this appeal from Chief Judge Buchmeyer’s

dismissal of her discrimination claims. Jones alleges for the

first time on appeal that Chief Judge Buchmeyer failed to recuse

him self from her case due to a bias against her attorney, thus

violating 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Although a disq ualification challenge raised for the first

time on appeal is not per se untimely, the timeliness requirement

of § 455 obligates a party to raise the disqualification issue “at

a reasonable time in the litigation.” Hollywood Fantasy Corp. v.2

Gabor

, 151 F.3d 203, 216 (5th Cir. 1998). This court has

recognized that a party must make a § 455 motion “at the earliest

p ossible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating

the basis for such a disqualification.” U nited States v. Sanford

,
157 F.3d 987, 988 (5th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. filed , Dec.

15, 1998 (No. 98-7290). We have rejected recusal challenges on

appeal as untimely when the challenger waited to see if he liked an

outcome before asserting the recusal issue. See United States v.

York , 888 F.2d 1050, 1056 (5th Cir. 1989).

Despite her assertions that “the district judge harbored bad

feelings toward plaintiff’s counsel before the trial in this case,”

Jones contends that Chief Judge Buchmeyer’s bias was not revealed

until her attorney’s closing argument. Jones failed, in any event,

to raise her disqualification argument bef o re Judge Buchmeyer

announced his ruling in her case, notwithstanding her previouslyheld belief that the judge was biased against her attorney.

Instead, she presents this argument for the first time on appeal.

Thus, Jones failed to raise t he recusal issue in a timely manner

and forfeited the objection.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006 (the
“Report”), I, Donald W. Barney, President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(1)   the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or 78o(d), and,





(2)   the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                March 13, 2006
            /s/
                Donald W. BarneyDonald
                W. BarneyPresident,
                Treasurer and Chief Financial
                Officer
#### James Edward WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-78.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
August 7, 2015 

Re: State v. John Gabriel Esquivel, 

 Trial Court Cause No. D-1-DC-14-301500 / 03-15-00439-CR 

Dear Mr. Kyle, 

The Reporter’s Record in this case is due today. I first received 

notice of this case being on appeal on July 16th, 2015, then 

notified further on July 25th, 2015, that the defendant has hired 

an appellate attorney. No payment arrangements have been 

made, but in all fairness, I have been in trial the week of July 

20th and again all this week and have not been able to get an 

estimate of the costs to the attorney. Even if I had, it would 

have been impossible to prepare the record in this short time 

period with my trial schedule. 

I’m respectfully requesting, at minimum, a 30-day extension to 

prepare the Reporter’s Record in this case. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Angela Chambers 

Official Court Reporter 

299th District Court
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





I, Yi He,
certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Forlink Software Corporation,
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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 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 on such evaluation; and





(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 (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(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:  March
      30, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Yi HeYi
      HeChief
      Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7685 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7685

   To require the Federal Trade Commission in consultation with the 
   Internal Revenue Service to submit a report to Congress on scams 
               targeting seniors, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2020

   Mr. Harder of California introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Federal Trade Commission in consultation with the 
   Internal Revenue Service to submit a report to Congress on scams 
               targeting seniors, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Seniors from Scams Act''.

SEC. 2. FTC REPORT ON SCAMS TARGETING SENIORS DURING EMERGENCIES.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Federal Trade Commission (referred to in this Act as the 
``Commission'') shall, in consultation with the Internal Revenue 
Service (referred to in this Act as the ``IRS''), submit a report to 
Congress including--
            (1) a description of the number and types of scams 
        identified by the Commission as being targeted at senior 
        citizens, including scams related to economic stimulus and 
        relief payments related to COVID-19; and
            (2) policy recommendations to prevent such scams, 
        especially as such scams relate to future national emergencies.

SEC. 3. INCREASING AWARENESS OF SCAMS TARGETING SENIORS.

    (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Commission and the IRS shall each update their 
websites to include the latest information, searchable by region and 
type of scam, on scams targeting seniors, including contacts for 
relevant law enforcement and adult protective service agencies.
    (b) Coordination With Media Outlets and Law Enforcement.--The 
Commission shall work with media outlets and law enforcement agencies 
to distribute the information included in the website of the Commission 
pursuant to subsection (a) to senior citizens and their families and 
caregivers.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000865084
<NAME> OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         332,882
<SECURITIES>                                   829,054
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,330,723
<PP&E>                                         182,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,686,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          888,030
<BONDS>                                        355,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          344,316
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           820
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,686,888
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,197,766
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,365,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               619,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (156,254)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            319,940
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   319,940
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.26


</TABLE>
Prescription Drug 

Disclosures

Louis A. Morris, Ph.D.

FTC-NAD Disclosure Workshop

May 22, 2001
Rx Drugs Advertising

DTC Promotion at $ 2 billion/year

$ 488 million/year on prime/network TV

l Spending up 26% from last year

l Category ranks 5th

l After cars/trucks and restaurants

l Before credit cards and soft drinks

Rx Sales rose 15%, to $145 billion
Broadcast Ad 

Disclosures

General Requirement - Brief Summary

l Statement of major risks and side effects

l Adequate provision for dissemination of 

prescribing information
Risk Communication

Major statement

l Content determined by “Fair Balance” 

l based on product label

l Integrated into Ad: audio or audio/visual

l Prominence and readability

l Size, contrast, distractions
Dissemination Outlets

Additional Information Available

l Toll-free telephone number

l Concurrently running print ad (magazine 

reference)

l Web address

l Ask doctor (HCP) for information
Graded Disclosures

Fair Balance

l Overall presentation of risks and benefits

l Sufficient contextual Information

l Supers can augment but not make make 

misleading information nonmisleading

Dissemination Outlets

l Notification sufficient (can use supers)
Ambien Video
Meridia Video
CA DRONE SUPPLY – ADDENDUM

August 27, 2015

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 

Re: Addendum to add Additional Unmanned Aircraft to Exemption Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

On Behalf of Revolutionary Unmanned Systems LLC dba., California Drone Supply (CA Drone Supply), I 

John Santry, Owner CA Drone Supply, would like to add an addendum to my request for exemption from 

Part 21 Subpart H; and Sections 91.203 (a) (1), 45.23 (b), 91.7 (a), 91.9, 61.113, 61.133, 91.109, 91.119, 

91.121, 91.151, and (91.401 - 91.417) Subpart E, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

This proposed addendum would allow for the operation of an additional unmanned aircraft (UA) the 

Freefly Alta for the purpose of aerial image acquisition and videography. 

This exemption cites similarity with relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11445, 

11062, 11109, 11112, 11213, and 11138 

The Freefly Alta is also a multi rotor craft similar to those already listed in the exemption request.

The owner’s manual for the Freefly Alta can be found here. User’s Manual

No other changes are being asked for in the original request.

I am the primary point of contact for this request and look forward to working with your office.

Sincerely,

John Santry, 

Owner

CA Drone Supply 

1608 India St #505

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: 804-852-7355

Email: john@revolutionaryus.com
**EXHIBIT 23.02**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements onForm S-8 (Nos.333-87922, 333-67776, and 333-107956) of our report dated November 26, 2002,with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Versant Corporation as ofOctober 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which report appears in the October 31, 2003annual report on Form 10-K of Versant Corporation.

 
|              | /s/KPMG LLP |   |
|-------------------|-------------|--------|
|              |        |
| San Jose, CA      |        |
| January 14,  2004 |        |

 

1

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134649 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134649 

 COA: 274195 

Wayne CC: 02-012459 

STEPHEN JOHNSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk