alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estelle HADLEY, Petitioner, v. IMMACULATA ACADEMY, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37242.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1968.

John M. Abramson, of Feldman & Ab-ramson, Miami, for petitioner.

Kates & Ress, North Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date January 25, 1968.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the es*4sential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fee is also denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph BERNES, Appellant, v. Eileen BERNES, Appellee.

No. 71-736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 30, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofFirst Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

c)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)       Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  March 14, 2005

 
|   | By: /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck           |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wendell McDONALD.

No. 61747.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through Harry F. Connick, D.A., Parish of Orleans, applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and stay order.

Writ denied. The ruling is correct.

SANDERS, C. J.,

concurs in denial. The evidence, if admissible, can be established by other witnesses.
D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D D

D

D

D

D D D D D

D D

D

D

D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GGG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GGG

G

G

GG

GGG

GG

GGGG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G G

G G

G

G

G

G G G G G

G G

G

G

G

729508

4238038

729508

4237618

729348

4237838

729688

4237838

729688

4237618

729348

4237618

729688

4238038

729348

4238038

729708

423805

729688

4238058

729668

4238058

729648

4238058

729628

4238058

729608

4238058

729588

4238058

729548

4238058

729528

4238058

729508

4238058

729488

4238058

729468

4238058

729448

4238058

729428

4238058

729408

4238058

729388

4238058

729368

4238058

729348

4238058

729328

4238058

729568

4238058

R21

R20

R19

R18

R17

R16

R15

R14

R13

R12

R11

R10

R09

R08

R07

R06

R05

R04

R03

R02

R01

S76

S75

S74

S73

S72

S71

S70

S69

S68

S67

S66

S65

S64

S63

S62

S61

S60

S59

S58

S57

S56

S55

S54

S53

S52

S51

S50

S49

S48

S47

S46

S45

S44

S43

S42

S41

S40

S39

S38

S37

S36

S35

S34

S33

S32

S31

S30

S29

S28

S27

S26

S25

S24

S23

S22

S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S09

S08

S07

S06

S05

S04

S03

S02

S01

R15

R14

R13

R12 R11

R10 R09 R08 R07 R06

R05

R04

R03

R01 R02

S29 S30

S28

S27

S26

S25

S24

S23

S22

S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S09

S08

S07 S06

S05

S04

S03

S02

S01

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,

Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Doe Run Herculaneum Exclusion Zones

G EPA

G MDNR

D 20 m grid

0 10 20 Meters
#### Gerald Canetti, Appellant, v AMCI, Ltd., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[721 NYS2d 398]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated March 19, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants AMCI, Ltd., and Plastic Center, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On January 17, 1994, the plaintiff was at a building owned by the respondent Plastic Center, Inc., and leased by the respondent AMCI, Ltd. (hereinafter AMCI), to pick up goods for his employer. While inside, the plaintiff saw three men stealing goods from his truck. He told an AMCI employee to open the door leading to a loading dock, which was about four to five feet above the ground. When that employee did so, the plaintiff stepped outside and onto a garbage dumpster located immediately in front of the loading-dock door. The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he lost his balance and fell from the *382dumpster to the ground. He brought this action against, among others, the respondents to recover damages for his personal injuries.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The presence of the dumpster in front of the loading dock was not an inherently dangerous condition, and it was readily observable. The respondents owed the plaintiff no duty “to warn against a condition that [could] readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” *(Tarricone v State of New York,*175 AD2d 308, 309; *see, Ackermann v Town of Fishkill,*201 AD2d 441, 443; *Binensztok v Marshall Stores,*228 AD2d 534, 535).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### Robert G. ALBAN, Deceased, through Helen Alban, Administratrix of his Estate, et al., Petitioners, v. Clifford M. WEISS and Aetna Life & Casualty Company, a foreign corporation licensed to do business within the State of Florida, jointly and severally, Respondent.

No. 42537.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 262 So.2d 486.

CARLTON, C. J, and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
November 3, 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF E .M.W., JR., M.J.W., AND I.W., CHILDREN

NO. 14

- 10

- 00964

- CV

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee , Eula Mae West, signed , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant , Rotania La’Shea White

- Thomas, to pay all costs incu rred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### B. G. BONAVENTURE ENTERPRISES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. William D. BORDERS et al., Appellee.

No. 72-988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Thomas E. Kirkland, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Numbers at a Glance

(As of March 31, 2019)

**Topics on this page:**
                          - Status of All Privacy Rule Complaints
                          - Total Investigated Resolutions
                          - Investigated Resolutions

----

 

** Referrals to DOJ - 725*

Back to Top

----

 

Back to Top

----

This bar graph shows a comparison of the complaints that OCR has investigated and resolved by calendar year according to the type of closure, and includes a bar reflecting the total closures.  The first bar in the group of three per year represents the complaints closed in which there was no violation, the second in which there was corrective action, and the third reflects the total closures.

 

Back to Top

Content last reviewed May 16, 2019
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FELICIANO MEMIJE-SANTOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10339

D.C. No. 5:08-cr-00596-JDF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Feliciano Memije-Santos appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

FILED

SEP 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-10339

Memije-Santos contends that the district court procedurally erred by

imposing a sentence without properly considering his arguments with respect to the

application of a 16-level enhancement based upon either of his two prior felony

convictions for crimes of violence. The record reflects that the district court

listened to and considered Memije-Santos’ arguments in this regard, but found the

circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one imposed. See

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also

United States v. Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. United

States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Memije-Santos also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively

unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory

purposes of sentencing when considered in light of the significant mitigating

factors that he presented. The record reflects that the sentence below the

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
#### William H. MEDDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*758Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to one years’ imprisonment after a jury trial on charges of unlawful burning of land.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that no reversible error was committed in the trial court. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Collins v. State, 230 So.2d 711 (Fla.App. 4th, 1970). Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of PictureTel Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-7477, 33-19024, 33-31161,
33-36315, 33-44719, 33-49814, 33-66502, 33-69292, 33-81848, 33-99272,
333-10163) of our reports dated February 12, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
PictureTel Corporation as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SANTANDER BANK, N.A.,

 Respondent

 v.

KING DRIVE CORP.; A LA CARTE

ENTERPRISES, INC.; ANGINO &

ROVNER, P.C. AND RICHARD C.

ANGINO AND ALICE K. ANGINO, H/W,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 259 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,860
<OTHER-SE>                                   (120,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 64,550
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,595
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Jerome WALLACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
AddendumSwift &CompanyMotor CarrierTransportation Agreement
In the event any property described in this bill of lading consists of foodproducts intended for human consumption and is delivered to its destination in atrailer with non-intact seals or leaves the control of the carrier and is laterrecovered, such products will be considered to be adulterated and unfit forhuman consumption and the carrier will be solely responsible for the cost of theproducts and expenses of disposal as directed by consignor.

__________________________________
 
_________________________________
  
Timothy Baringer
  
Carrier Representative
 
Director of Transportation

Swift & Company

Greeley, CO 80634
  
4/26/04
   
_________________________________
  
Dated
   
Dated
251 La. 731

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jack E. PAGE.

No. 49045.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1968.

In re: Jack E. Page applying for writ of mandamus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the relief prayed for.
#### Bennett MARGOLIS, Appellant, v. The COBBS COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Henry Cobbs, Appellees.

No. 67-714.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 4, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1968.

*53Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Broad & Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Fowler v. Industrial Acceptance Corp., 101 Fla. 259, 134 So. 60; Gus’ Baths v. Lightbown, 101 Fla. 1211, 135 So. 300; 97 A.L.R.2d 997, p. 1000.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                          17,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (259)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,691
<PP&E>                                         147,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,314 
<BONDS>                                        144,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,484
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,255)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,191
<SALES>                                         13,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    382
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### LOUNDERS v. RAMSEY.

No. 36539.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion.