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

For the First Circuit

No. 02-1284

SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL

TRANSITIONAL CARE CENTER,

Petitioner, Appellee,

v.

TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 16, 2002 is

corrected as follows:

1. At the end of the paragraph on page 11, line 2, add new

footnote 4.

4.After this opinion had gone to the printers,

a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit issued a

contrary decision on a case very similar to

this one. Md. Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson,

No. 01-2012, 2002 WL 31254029 (4th Cir. Oct.

9, 2002) (rejecting Paragon and holding the

Secretary's interpretation of 42 C.F.R. §

413.30(e)(2) to be inconsistent with what it

deemed to be the regulation's unambiguous

language). We have given that opinion careful

consideration but find it unpersuasive.

2. Replace former footnote 5 (which will now be footnote 6),

on page 16, with the following:

6.The Hospital and the Secretary have called

to our attention through successive postargument letters, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(j);

1st Cir. R. 28(j), the Board's recent

decisions in four other cases, including Mercy
Med. SNF v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., No. 97-

0135, 2002 WL 1906219 (PRRB Aug. 7, 2002). In

these matters, the Board, relying in large

part on the district court's opinion in this

case, rejected the Secretary's interpretation

of the new provider exemption. See, e.g., id.

at *17. However, the Secretary, exercising

his discretion under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1),

subsequently granted reconsideration and

reversed the Board's determination in Mercy

Med. See Mercy Med. SNF v. Mut. of Omaha Ins.

Co., No. 2002-D31 (CMS Admin. Oct. 8, 2002)

(citing Paragon, 251 F.3d at 1150-51, with

approval). We presume that the Secretary will

reverse the other three Board decisions in due

course. Consequently, we cede deference to

the Secretary's determination, not the

Board's, as the definitive statement of the

agency's position. See 42 U.S.C. §

1395oo(f)(1); see also Anaheim Mem'l Hosp. v.

Shalala, 130 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1997).

3. Change the numbers of all the succeeding footnotes

accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,379,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  314,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,872,856
<PP&E>                                         375,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,217,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,074
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,117,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,217,108
<SALES>                                      1,338,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,338,807
<CGS>                                          738,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  759,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (136,958)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,732)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (71,799)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
#### LASTRA CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. S/D ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 74-14.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Martin TOWER, a/k/a Tower Craft, a/k/a Martin Tower Painting Systems, etc., Appellant, v. TOWER PAINT INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a Tower Paint, etc., Appellee.

No. 71-799.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### James DERRICK, Appellant, v. CAPE CANAVERAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD, Appellee.

No. 69-410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 8, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21.1



THE PMI GROUP, INC.  SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                                   |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.                                         |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Capital Corporation                                            |  | Delaware                     
|PMI Insurance Co.                                                  |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Mortgage Guaranty Co.                                          |  | Arizona                      
|Residential Insurance Co.                                          |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Reinsurance Co.                                                |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Holdings Canada Inc.                        |  | Canada                       
|PMI Europe Holdings Limited                                        |  | Ireland                      
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Company Limited                             |  | Ireland                      
|PMI Plaza LLC                                                      |  | Delaware                     
|RAM Holdings Ltd (unconsolidated, partially owned)                 |  | Bermuda                      
|RAM Reinsurance Company Ltd (unconsolidated, partially owned)      |  | Bermuda                      
|CMG Mortgage Insurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned)   |  | Wisconsin                    
|CMG Mortgage Reinsurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned) |  | Wisconsin                    
|CMG Mortgage Assurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned)   |  | Wisconsin                    
|FGIC Corporation (unconsolidated, partially owned)                 |  | Delaware                     
|PMI Mortgage Services Co.                                          |  | California                   
|Commercial Loan Insurance Corporation                              |  | Wisconsin                    
|WMAC Credit Insurance Corporation                                  |  | Wisconsin                    
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Company Canada                              |  | Canada
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the amendment to the Quarterly Report of Metromedia International Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated
this 24th day of February 2004.

| | METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.                                                                                                                    
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /S/  HAROLD F. PYLE, IIIHarold F. Pyle, III Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A
signed original 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.

---

QuickLinks
#### Herbert F. SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. William F. BUSSE et al., Appellees.

No. 73-17.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 17, 1973.

Robert J. Carroll of Muscarella, Peren-ich & Carroll, Clearwater, for appellant.

Charles S. Carrere of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellees in a slip and fall action. The record on appeal discloses that there are genuine issues of material fact which have not been eliminated by the movants for the summary judgment.

Reversed. Carter v. Parker, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 3.

MANN, C." J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
#### Ralph H. BEARDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 42188.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,831
<SECURITIES>                                   951,483
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,035,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     74,529
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,229,601
<PP&E>                                      10,682,181
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,853,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,851,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,453,592
<BONDS>                                      1,027,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,828,066
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,542,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,851,071
<SALES>                                      3,362,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,452,982
<CGS>                                        2,086,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,654,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,747,987<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,029,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,029,202)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,029,202)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<FN>
<F1>Includes $227,442 of non-cash expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-86,132-01
IN RE CLARENCE RAY R ANDOLP H, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1116419-A IN THE 177 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . N E W E L L , J., not participating. O R D E R Relator has f

iled a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of manda mus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 177 District Court of Har ris County , that more than 180 da y s have e lapsed, t h and that the application has not y et been forwa rded to this Court. T E X . R
. A P P . P
. 73.5. Relator contends that the district c ourt enter ed an or der de signa ting issues on Mar ch 4, 2010. Respondent, the J udg e of the 177 District Court of Har ris County , shall file a response with t h this Court by having the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such habea s corpus application. I n the alterna tive, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order desig nating issues and then have2

the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such application. I n either case , Respondent’s answe r shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of this o rd er . T h i s appli cation for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abe y ance until R espondent ha s submitt ed his response
.
Filed: January

25, 2017 Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7485
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ROOSEVELT MILLER, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-92-203-G, CA-94-569-2) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Roosevelt Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra JaneHairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate reviewby failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the order of the district court. We dispense withoral 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
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 17, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-905

Lower Tribunal No. 15-525

________________

Mary D. Benitez,

Petitioner,

vs.

Jorge L. Benitez,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction — Prohibition

Mary D. Benitez, in proper person.

Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass, (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

We treat the instant appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition. See Eato v.

State, 7 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (treating an appeal from an order denying
a motion for disqualification as a petition for writ of prohibition). As the trial court

correctly denied the legally insufficient disqualification motion, we hereby deny

the petition for writ of prohibition. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) (“A motion to

disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed [ten] days after

discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly

presented to the court for an immediate ruling.”); see also MacKenzie v. Super

Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332, 1335 (Fla. 1990) (“[A]n allegation in a

motion [for disqualification] that a litigant or counsel for a litigant has made a legal

campaign contribution to the political campaign of the trial judge, . . . without

more, is” legally insufficient.); Zaias v. Kaye, 643 So. 2d 687, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA

1994) (“The fact that an attorney made a campaign contribution to a judge or

served on a judge’s campaign committee does not, without more, require

disqualification.”) (citations omitted).

2
#### Elizabeth MARKHAM, Appellant, v. Ronald MARKHAM, Appellee.

No. 68-1044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 6, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1969.

*760Henry M. Cain and Edward L. Lustgar-ten, Miami, for appellant.

George C. Persandi, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARICDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a post final judgment order in a divorce proceeding, wherein her attack upon a financial settlement [incorporated in the final judgment of divorce] was denied. We affirm.

She was represented by able counsel at the time of the entry into the property settlement agreement. It is apparent from the record she was aware of her then husband’s financial worth [as revealed from his income tax returns and financial statement], that the agreement was fair and adequate,1 and it ill behooves her to attempt to set it aside after accepting the benefits of the settlement, particularly with not even an offer to return the parties to the status quo. See: Hunter v. Hunter, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 189; Stehli v. Thompson, 151 Fla. 566, 10 So.2d 123.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

1

. Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Platt v. Platt, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 253; Sanders v. Sanders, Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 916; Klaber v. Klaber, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 98.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4229

_____________________________
R ONALD B ROCK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington, Judge

. January 2, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

.
R OBERTS , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Ronald Brock, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Program 2539-S Contract Term: Date of Award through March 1, 2013 plus four option years

TITLE: Engineering Drawing Reproduction

Prepared By: TF
Reviewed By: SFW

BHFX, LLC Print Xpress Previous Contractor
Tem BASIS | arlington Heights, IL Chicago, IL | OHPX, LLC
NO. DESCRIPTION warp oN ant ‘ Acington Heights, IL
RATE cost RATE cost RATE cOsT
q COMPLETE PRODUCT
(a) _|Bond xerographic print, one half size (ex.11" x 17") per copy, per page...
AjBlack 5249) 0.36] 1,889.64! 0.20] 1,049.80] 0.36 1,889.64]
2\|Color 234) 2.70] 631.80) 0.35] 81.90} 0.99 231.66)
{b) Bond xerographic print, full size (22" x 34" to 24 x 36) per copy, per page..
A}|Black 2284) 0.72| 1,644.48 0.85} 1,941.40) 0.72 1,644.48)
2iColor 130) §.40| 702.00 8.00}, 1,040.00; 4.80 624.00]
(6) |IBond xerographic print, full size (over 24” x 36" to 28 x 40) per copy, per page...
A} Black 500} 1.08 540.00 0.98] 490.00 1.08 540.00]
2ilColor 100) 8.10} 810.00 12.00}, 1,200.00}, 10.05 1,005.00}
(c)__jCollating and Stapling per set..... searesesssncenesencevenee 325) 1.00) 325.00 1.00] 325.00) 1.00) 325.00]
CONTRACTOR TOTALS| $6,542.92 $6,128.40 $6,259.78
DISCOUNT} 0.00% $0.00]| 0.00%] $0.00] 0.00% $0.00)
DISCOUNTED TOTALS| $6,542.92 $6,128.10 $6,259.78
Awarded
* GPO Estimate
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Friendly IceCream Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Paul V. Hoagland, as Executive Vice President of Administration and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2)              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:    |                                                                     | /s/ PAUL V. HOAGLAND |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Paul V. Hoagland                                                         |                 |
|   | Title: | Executive  Vice President of Administration and  Chief Financial Officer |                 |
|   | Date:  | July 24, 2003                                                            |                 |
|        |        |                                                                          |                      |        |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132935 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: 132935 

 COA: 271238 

Wayne CC: 90-008584

RANDALL GRIFFIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s0830 

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. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

Hyperdynamics Corporation

Houston, Texas

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2008 (File No. 333-149774); the Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2010 (File No. 333-170820); the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2010 (File No. 333-167486); and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2011  (File No. 333-173051), of our report dated September  28, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2010 and for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hyperdynamics Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ GBH   CPAS, PC |   |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------|
|               |   |   |
| GBH   CPAS, PC     |   |   |
| www.gbhcpas.com    |   |   |
| Houston,   Texas   |   |   |
|               |   |   |
| September 13, 2011 |   |   |

 

----