alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LAUDERHILL SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. J. KAYSER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-1029.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

Terrence J. Russell, of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster & Schmerer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Neil Flaxman, of Wertheim & Flaxman, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
-  Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) 
-  The Appeals Process      -  Level 1 Appeals 
  -  Level 2 Appeals 
  -  Level 3 Appeals (OMHA) 
  -  Level 4 Appeals 
  -  Level 5 Appeals 
  -  Legal Authorities 
  -  Case Processing Manual 
-  Filing an Appeal      -  Coverage and Claims Appeals        -  Medicare Beneficiary and Enrollee Appeals and Assistance 
    -  Escalation Rights 
  -  Your Right to Representation 
  -  Appeals Status Lookup 
  -  Forms 
  -  Glossary 
  -  FAQs 
-  About OMHA      -  Organizational Chart        -  Leadership 
  -  Workload Information and Statistics 
-  Contact OMHA 
-  Work for Us 
-  Whistleblower Protections and Non-Disclosure Agreements 
-  Notice of Non-Discrimination 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Your Right to Representation

To appoint a representative, you or your representative should complete the form entitled: Appointment of Representative - CMS-1696. If you do not use form CMS-1696, your appointment must:
                          - Be in writing and signed and dated by you and your representative;
                          - Provide a statement appointing the representative to act on your behalf;
                          - Authorize the release of your personal health information to your representative;
                          - Include a written explanation of the purpose and scope of the representation;
                          - List your name and your representative’s names, phone numbers, and addresses;
                          - Include your Medicare Number (Health Insurance Claim Number or Medicare Beneficiary Identifier) or National Provider Identifier (NPI);
                          - Indicate your representative’s professional status, if any, or relationship to you; and
                          - Be filed with the entity processing your appeal.

**Unless revoked, an appointment is considered valid for one year from the date the form is signed.** Once the form is filed, it is valid for the duration of the appeal. Therefore, a signed form can be used for more than one appeal as long as the appeal is filed within one year of the date on the form.

**In addition, there are certain individuals who can bring an appeal on your behalf,** pursuant to State or other applicable laws**.**  Such an individual, known as an "**authorized representative**," may be a court-appointed guardian, an individual who has durable power of attorney, a health care proxy, or a person designated under a State's health care consent statute.

Content last reviewed January 15, 2021
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket DOT-OST-2011-0169]

Application of Sun Air Express, LLC, d/b/a Sun Air International 
for Commuter Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2012-6-1); Docket DOT-OST-
2011-0169.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Sun Air 
Express, LLC d/b/a Sun Air International fit, willing, and able, and 
awarding it Commuter Air Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
June 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2011-0169 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon Walker, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room W86-487), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Robert A. Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-13953 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

 

| ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | 1    |
|----------------------------------------------------|------|
|                                                    |
| BALANCE SHEETS                                     | 2-3  |
|                                                    |
| STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS                            | 4-5  |
|                                                    |
| STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN    STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY    | 6    |
|                                                    |
| STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS                            | 7-8  |
|                                                    |
| NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS                      | 9-20 |
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference, in Registration Statements No.
333-8538 and No. 333-7462 on form S-8, in Registration Statement No.
333-12216 on Form F-2 and Registration Statement No. 333-51014 on Form F-3 of
our report dated September 16, 2005 on the consolidated financial statements
of Sand Technology Inc. (the "Company"), appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of the Company, for the year ended July 31, 2005. We also consent
to incorporation by reference in the aforementioned Registration Statements
of our Comments by Independent Auditors for U.S. Readers on Canada-U.S.
Reporting Differences dated September 16, 2005 appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended July 31, 2005.



                                          /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                              Independent Registered Chartered
                                              Accountants

January 27, 2006
Montreal, Quebec
# C_2022207EN.01004002.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (Testa Rossa)

(Case T-451/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Testa Rossa - Earlier EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 207/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tyrol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2021 (Case R 878/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wedl & Hofmann and Mr Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAMONT ANTHONY FULTON,

Petitioner

v.

PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON

PLEAS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 8 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of May , 2023, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1022

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil and gas leases

for waters off the coast of the State of New Jersey until the year

2000, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil

and gas leases for waters off the coast of the State

of New Jersey until the year 2000, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Jersey Offshore

5 Oil and Gas Moratorium Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

7 As used in this Act:
2

•S 1022 IS

1 (1) LEASE.—The term ‘‘lease’’ has the same

2 meaning as is provided in section 2(c) of the Outer

3 Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(c)).

4 (2) PRELEASING ACTIVITY.—The term

5 ‘‘preleasing activity’’ means any activity conducted

6 before a lease sale is held including—

7 (A) the scheduling of a lease;

8 (B) a request for industry interest;

9 (C) a call for information or a nomination;

10 (D) the identification of an area;

11 (E) the publication of a draft or final envi12 ronmental impact statement;

13 (F) a notice of sale; and

14 (G) any form of rotary drilling.

15 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

16 the Secretary of the Interior.

17 SEC. 3. NEW JERSEY OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS MORATO18 RIUM.

19 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and

20 ending on January 1, 2000, the Secretary of the Interior

21 may not conduct any preleasing activity, or hold any lease

22 sale, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43

23 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) with respect to the area seaward

24 from the State of New Jersey.

Æ
#### Russell M. WISE et al., Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellees.

No. 72-788.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
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

I, J. Scott Kamsler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 29, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date:
June 12, 2009



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/    J. SCOTT
KAMSLER                          
|J. Scott Kamsler                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<Table>
<Caption>

                                                                 SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
                                                       ----------------------------------------------------
                                                        NUMBER                 PERCENT           EQUIVALENT
                                                       OF SHARES             OUTSTANDING           SHARES
                                                       ----------            -----------         ----------
<S>                                                    <C>                   <C>                 <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                 2,300,000               100.00%           2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                              2,508,997               100.00%           2,508,997
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock           15,310,943               100.00%          15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                         11,242,857               100.00%          11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                          4,323,874               100.00%           4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                           6,000,000               100.00%           6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                         (6,588)              100.00%              (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                 3,789,715               100.00%           3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                   714,286               100.00%             714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued             190,651               100.00%             190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                     134,737               100.00%             134,737
                                                       ----------                              ------------
                                                       46,509,472                                46,509,472

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                              46,509,472

NET LOSS                                                                                        (72,897,000)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                             $      (1.57)
                                                                                               =============
</Table>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         416,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                       633
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,069,971
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,861,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 792,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     772,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   792,790
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               565,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  617,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,944
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            600,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   600,944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-30854 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus RICHARD BOTTINI, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1716)

_______________________________________________________ September 24, 1998 Before REAVLEY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Richard Bottini appeals a civil judgment assessing statutory penalties against him under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. After reviewing the record and briefs, we are of the opinion that the district court committed no errors of law, and that its findings of fact as set for in its Amended Opinion are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JILL THORNSBERRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-55655

D.C. No. 3:10-CV-02459-MDD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Jill Thornsberry (Thornsberry) appeals the district court’s order entering

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(Commissioner). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm. 

FILED

JAN 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court did not err in concluding that substantial evidence

supported the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) to accord the treating

physicians’ opinions little weight. The treating physicians’ opinions were

conclusory, brief and inconsistent with the record. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec. Admin, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, a doctor’s opinion

that a claimant is disabled is not itself a medical opinion but an issue reserved

exclusively for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1). The ALJ had

no duty to recontact the treating physicians before finding Thornsberry not

disabled because the doctors’ reports were neither ambiguous nor insufficient to

make a disability determination. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217

(9th Cir. 2005). 

Nor did the district court err in finding that the ALJ properly applied res

judicata to Thornsberry’s application. See Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691, 693

(9th Cir. 1988). Thornsberry did not present any evidence to suggest that her

condition deteriorated, or that circumstances changed since the denial of benefits in

2004. Our opinion in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 (9th Cir.

2012) (en banc), does not apply, as the matter before us does not involve Chevron

deference. 

2
Finally, the district court did not err in concluding that substantial evidence

supported the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination. The ALJ provided

“specific, clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting Thornsberry’s statements

about the intensity, persistence and limiting effect of her symptoms to the extent

they were inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment. 

Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The

ALJ correctly considered Thornsberry’s daily activities, her unexplained failure to

seek consistent treatment and the state medical expert’s opinion that Thornsberry’s

subjective complaints of pain and limitations appeared disproportionate to her

diagnoses. See id. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
#### AZARIAH QUINBY *vs.*WILLIAM BOYD.

On a sale of goods to one for another, the legal liability depends on the question to whom the credit was given, which may be ascertained by the entry on the books, and other circumstances.

Assumpsit for lumber sold and delivered. Plea, the general issue.

John Montgomery a witness, after qualifying himself on the *voire dire,*proved the sale of the lumber to Boyd, and swore that the credit was given to him. He knew that the lumber was to build a house for one M'Glivet, but Boyd built the house by contract, and the credit was given exclusively to him. The entry on plaintiff’s books was,

“ William Boyd Dr. (for Anthony M'Glivet.”)

The witness was an agent for Quinby, in the sale of the lumber. Sometimes made out bills in his own name. M’Glivet has failed.

*142
      *Hamilton,*for defendant

contended, that the lumber was sold by Montgomery as his own, and sold to M'Glivet, And he proved by M'Glivet’s assignee that Montgomery had placed a bill in his hands for this lumber, telling witness that he had told Mr. Boyd that he was willing to take a part of his account, He did hot propose to this witness to come in for a dividend of M‘Glivet’s estate. The bill was rendered in Montgomery’s name, and he afterwards brought suit in bis name which was struck off, and the present action brought, as Mr. Hamilton urged, to enable Montgomery to be a witness.

*Mr. Bayard,*

however, explained that the bringing the first suit was Ms own mistake, which *he*was *led into by*the informality of the account, not having seen his client.

*R. H. Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*Hamilton,*for defendant.

The plaintiff had a verdict.