alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of 

Advertising Practices 

April 6, 2023 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

VIA FED EX 

CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND 

To Whom This May Concern: 

The staff of the Division of Advertising Practices of the Federal Trade Commission 

recently received a complaint claiming that your office failed to automatically provide a patient 

with their eyeglass prescription immediately upon completion of their eyeglass exam and 

required the patient to pay a fee as a condition of releasing the prescription. Such practices 

violate the FTC’s Ophthalmic Practice Rules, 16 C.F.R. Part 456, known as the Eyeglass Rule, 

which require prescribers to provide a copy of the eyeglass prescription immediately after the 

eye examination, even if the patient does not request it, and prohibit prescribers from charging 

any fee in addition to the examination fee as a condition of providing a copy of the prescription.0F

1 

In addition, the Rule prohibits prescribers from requiring that patients buy ophthalmic 

goods as a condition of providing a copy of the prescription, and prescribers cannot require 

patients to sign a waiver or release as a condition of releasing the prescription. 16 C.F.R. § 

456.2. Prescribers also cannot refuse to perform an eye exam unless the patient purchases 

ophthalmic goods from the prescriber. Id. The Rule imposes requirements on prescribers that 

are intended to allow consumers to comparison shop for eyeglasses. 

You are advised to immediately cease and desist from engaging in any acts or practices 

that violate the Rule. Violations of the Rule may result in legal action, including civil penalties 

of up to $50,120 per violation. 

You should review the Rule and revise your practices as necessary to ensure that they 

comply with the Rule’s requirements. For your reference, you may find a business guidance 

1 A prescriber may require a patient to pay for the eye exam before giving the patient a 

copy of the prescription, but only if the prescriber also requires immediate payment from patients 

whose exams reveal no need for ophthalmic goods. 16 C.F.R. § 456.2(a). 
 

 

 

XXX 

April 6, 2023 

Page 2 

publication produced by the FTC, “Complying with the Eyeglass Rule”, on our web site at 

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-eyeglass-rule. 

Within 5 business days of receipt of this letter, send a message to Sarah Botha and 

Alysa Bernstein via electronic mail at sbotha@ftc.gov and abernstein@ftc.gov describing the 

specific action you plan to take to address the reported violations. For any questions you have, 

please contact Ms. Botha at (202) 326-2036 or Ms. Bernstein at (202) 326-3289. Thank you for 

your prompt attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Serena Viswanathan 

Associate Director 

Division of Advertising Practices
#### James WATSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1143.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CARLA DUGLIN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1109 ) LAURENCE DUGLIN, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 18, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robert A. Bauman, Judge. David A. Maney of Maney Damsker Jones & Kuhlman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Joy Ann Demas of Steven J. Glaros & Associates, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 99.1












April 20, 2010


Analyst Contact:
Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:
Brad Borror918-588-7582






ONEOK Partners Increases Quarterly Distribution
 
 TULSA, Okla. – April 20, 2010 – The board of directors of the general partner of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) has increased the partnership’s quarterly cash distribution to $1.11 per unit from $1.10 per unit, effective for the first quarter 2010, resulting in an annualized cash distribution of $4.44 per unit. The distribution is payable May 14, 2010, to unitholders of record as of April 30, 2010.
 
 “Our growing fee-based earnings provide us the opportunity to continue to increase distribution payments to unitholders,” said John W. Gibson, chairman, president and chief executive officer of ONEOK Partners. “The completion of our more than $2 billion investment program late last year, as well as other projects currently under development, creates additional distribution growth opportunities in the future.”
 
 ONEOK Partners has increased its distribution by 39 percent since April 2006, when a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) became general partner.
 
 
 
 ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 42.8 percent of the partnership. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.
 
 For more information, visit the Web site at www.oneokpartners.com.
 
 Some of the statements contained and incorporated in this news release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements relate to financial adjustments in connection with the accelerated share repurchase program and other matters. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements in certain circumstances.
 
 This news release serves as qualified notice to nominees as provided for under Treasury Regulation Sections 1.144-4(b)(4) and (d). Please note that 100 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P.’s distributions to foreign investors are attributable to income that is effectively connected with a United States trade or business. Accordingly, all of
  
  ONEOK Partners, L.P.’s distributions to foreign investors are subject to federal income tax withholding at the highest effective tax rate for individuals or corporations, as applicable. Nominees, and not ONEOK Partners, L.P., are treated as withholding agents responsible for withholding on the distributions received by them on behalf of foreign investors. OKS-FD
 
  ###
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Certification of CFO

In connection with the Annual Report of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2008) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey P. Devaney, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
            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/ Jeffrey P. Devaney
----------------------
Jeffrey P. Devaney                                              March 16, 2009
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
      other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
      signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
      written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
      Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                       190
<INVENTORY>                                         24
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,041
<PP&E>                                           4,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,682
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,257
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    43
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    824
<INCOME-TAX>                                       312
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       512
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of Advertising Practices

 October 8, 2020

Via Electronic Mail (lbrett@bbbnp.org) 

Laura Brett, Esq. 

Vice President 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

Re: Advertising by Little Spoon, Inc. for Little Spoon Baby Food 

Dear Ms. Brett: 

Thank you for your May 19, 2020 letter referring an NAD Decision regarding advertising 

by Little Spoon, Inc. (“Little Spoon”) for Little Spoon Baby Food. We understand that this 

referral arose out of an NAD Challenge filed against Little Spoon by Plum Organics, PBC, a 

division of Campbell Soup Company (“Plum”). Plum challenged Little Spoon’s advertising 

claims that Little Spoon Baby Food is “fresh” and that its competitors’ shelf-stable baby food is 

unhealthy. After participating in the NAD proceeding, Little Spoon declined to follow the 

recommendations set forth in NAD’s Decision. Accordingly, you referred this matter to both the 

Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. 

In addition to contacting Little Spoon’s counsel, we consulted with staff of FDA’s Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which regulates “fresh” claims in food labeling.1

 In 

deference to FDA’s expertise regarding the claims at issue, the FTC has determined not to take 

additional action at this time. In coming to this conclusion, we considered a number of factors 

related to resource allocation and enforcement priorities, as well as the nature of any FTC Act 

violation and the type and severity of any consumer injury. 

1 See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 101.95 (food labeling regulation defining “fresh” and related terms), available at 

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=bc561543dfe4b9268c77ea6960b66d37&mc=true&node=se21.2.101 195&rgn=div8 (last accessed Oct. 8, 

2020). 
The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may 

require. We appreciate your referral and the opportunity to continue supporting the NAD selfregulatory process. 

Very truly yours, 

Carolyn L. Hann 

Chief of Staff for Advertising Practices 

cc: J. Alexander Hershey, Clark Hill PLC 

s/ Carolyn L. Hann
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX) 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

June 18, 2014

Hon. E ileen M. Leeds

Guerra, Leeds, Sabo & Hernandez, PLLC

1534 E. 6th St., Suite 200

Brownsville, TX 78520

Hon. David Gonzales III

County Court at Law No. 3

974 E. Harrison

Brownsville, TX 78520

Consuelo Davila

2904 Andorra St.

Brownsville, TX 78526

William Arthur Newman

5910 N. Central Exp'y, Ste 1600

Dallas, TX 75206 Georginna Del Valle

Begum Law Group

2401 Wild Flower Dr., Ste. B

Brownsville, TX 78526

- 2911

Michael A. Hummert

Attorney at Law

5910 N. Central Expressway

1600 Premier Place

Dallas, TX 75206

M s. Rosa Zepeda

4380 Boca Chica, No. 6

Brownsville, TX 78521

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00331

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2012

- CCL

- 00105

Style: In re Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Joe G. Rivera , Cameron County Clerk
Proposed IFC Investment in Pacific Midstream Ltd.

(Colombia)

October 28, 2014

The United States carefully reviewed this proposed investment and the 

United States sees some benefits, including the contribution that this pipeline will 

make to improving regional energy security, particularly as it represents a key 

initial step towards a sustainable supply of natural gas resources for Central 

American and Caribbean countries.

The United States also appreciates the contribution that this project will make to 

reducing carbon emissions by removing oil trucks from the road and supporting the 

switch to cleaner-burning fuels.

However, the United States does not find as compelling a case on IFC 

additionality and development impact. While this project was successful in 

mobilizing significant private funds for Pacific Midstream, the United States thinks

this is an indication of the already high level of private sector interest in Colombia 

and questions whether IFC’ s participation was really needed. The United States

understands that the client was eager for IFC’s involvement, but that there was also 

interest from other private sector investors. While this demonstrates the positive 

reputation IFC has built, the United States does not believe the partnership - on its 

own - is sufficient to justify IFC’s involvement in the project, especially without a 

compelling case with regard to development impact. 

On this front, the United States found it difficult to see the critical link to the 

World Bank Group’s twin goals, and even the link to poverty and job creation in 

Colombia. There is little evidence of job creation, linkages to the broader 

Colombian economy, and direct impact on poverty. 

In summary, when reviewing investments, the United States wants to see not 

only that IFC is a trusted partner that can mobilize resources, but that IFC is vital

financially to get the deal done and, most critically, that there is a compelling case 

for development impact and a clear alignment with the World Bank Group’s twin 

goals. The United States does not want to see the IFC competing with the private 

sector for deals or taking on a role that the private sector can fulfill. 

Given these concerns, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on 

this investment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6328

MARK STEVEN STANTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LOWELL WOOD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-889-5-H)

Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 25, 1999

Before HAMILTON and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Steven Stanton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Steven Stanton appeals the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Stanton v. Wood, No. CA-98-889-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25,

1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Appellant, v. Allen ALLWEISS, an individual, Appellee.

No. 70-227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 15, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1971.

John A. Curtiss, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.

*427Richard L. Mensh, of Mensh & Mensh, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. v. Valenti, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 356.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
261 La. 1037

#### Ronald Patrick SULLIVAN v. HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al.

No. 52422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1972.

In re: Ronald Patrick Sullivan applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Martin. 260 So.2d 35.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                 
<ARTICLE>                                                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1000
                                                       
<S>                                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              Oct-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                 Nov-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                   Jan-30-1999
<CASH>                                                               4,729
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        8,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          (493)
<INVENTORY>                                                         40,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    53,579
<PP&E>                                                             151,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     (68,102)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     156,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               58,354
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                             1,622
<OTHER-SE>                                                          31,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       156,093
<SALES>                                                            203,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                              150,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    50,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   1,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        815
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    535
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.48
        
 

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Laboratories, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I Dan K. Wassong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ DAN K. WASSONG
     -----------------------
     Dan K. Wassong
     Chief Executive Officer
     May 7, 2004

<PAGE>