alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruben Espinal et al., Respondents, v James Galicia et al., Appellants.

[737 NYS2d 102]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

“Although a bulging or herniated disc may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), a plaintiff must provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury *529and its duration” *(Monette v Keller,*281 AD2d 523, 523-524; *see, Duldulao v City of New York,*284 AD2d 296, 297). The defendants’ medical expert examined the plaintiff Rosa Montero and stated in his affirmed report, inter alia, that “[clervical range of motion was complete and pain-free” and straight-leg raising was negative to 90 degrees, despite magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports showing disc bulging at C6-C7 and a right paracentral herniated disc at L5-S1. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Montero did not sustain a serious injury in the incident *(see, Duldulao v City of New York, supra).*

The defendants’ medical expert also examined the plaintiff Ruben Espinal and stated in a corresponding affirmed report, inter alia, that “[clervical range of motion was complete and pain free,” despite a MRI report showing a bulging disc at C5-C6. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Espinal did not sustain a serious injury in the incident.

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs’ treating physician failed to specify the objective tests she performed in arriving at her conclusions concerning alleged restrictions in range of motion for each plaintiff *(see, Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.
-  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 November 30, 2008)

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

----

**Status of All Complaints**

----

**Total Investigated Resolutions**

----

Back to Top

 

## Enforcement Highlights and Numbers at a Glance

                            - Current Enforcement Highlights
                            - Enforcement Highlights Archived by Month
                            - Enforcement Data by Calendar Year
                            - Current Numbers at a Glance
                            - Numbers at a Glance Archive

Content last reviewed July 26, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, 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:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |              |  |                                                                                                                     |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 29, 2006 |  |  |  | By:          |  | /s/    JEFFREY A.
LEDDY                                                                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Name: Title: |  | Jeffrey A. Leddy Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132877 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE KALIE RAHE, Minor. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 132877 

 COA: 270232

TAWNIE M. RAHE, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

 Ingham CC

 Family Division: 00-056071-NA 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0123 

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. 

January 26, 2007 

 Clerk
#### General Lee GARY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 28, 1970.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James M. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*524OWEN, Judge.

Appellant, represented by the public defender after having been adjudged indigent, was convicted of aggravated assault upon his plea of guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, the maximum allowed under F.S. Section 784.04, F.S.A. By separate order costs in the amount of $39.96 were taxed against appellant with a proviso that in default of payment thereof he be confined in the Palm Beach County jail for a term of 39 days at hard labor consecutive to the sentence in the state prison theretofore imposed. The appeal is from this latter order.

The order appealed was entered April 14, 1969. At that time the trial court had the authority to impose upon appellant, even though indigent, a period of confinement beyond the maximum term specified by statute in the event of appellant’s failure to satisfy the payment of costs. Dixon v. Mayo, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 176; Williams v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 415, 28 So.2d 691. However, while this appeal was pending the Supreme Court of the United States on June 29, 1970, filed its opinion in the case of Williams v. State of Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, expressly holding that where an indigent criminal defendant has been sentenced for the maximum period fixed by statute regulating the substantive offense, the state may not constitutionally imprison him beyond the maximum term specified by statute because of his failure to satisfy the monetary provisions of the sentence. The holding applies to costs as well as fines.

On the authority of Williams v. State of Illinois, supra, we vacate that portion of the court’s order of April 14, 1969, which provides that in default of payment of costs of $39.96 taxed against appellant he be confined in the Palm Beach County jail for a term of 39 days at hard labor to run consecutive with the sentence of five years. No other error having been demonstrated, the costs judgment as thus modified, and the judgment and sentence are severally affirmed.

Affirmed, as modified.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
#### Charles WALKER v. STATE.

No. 36480.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 199 So.2d 796.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 32,776

5 MARCIE MATTHEWS,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY

8 Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

13 Nicole Murray, Assistant Appellate Defender

14 Santa Fe, NM 

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 GARCIA, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We issued a second notice

2 of proposed summary disposition on November 14, 2013, proposing to reverse and

3 remand for consideration of Defendant’s arguments concerning the ignition interlock

4 feature of her sentence. The State has filed a response with this Court indicating that

5 it does not oppose our proposed summary disposition. 

6 {2} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the second notice of proposed summary

7 disposition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

8 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 ___________________________

10 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 

13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

14 

15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
#### Arsenio GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 19, 1968.

Engel & Pollack and Philip S. Goldin, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 416; Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 315, 85 So. 911 (1920); Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Cappetta v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 309.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,849,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,036,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,145,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,918,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          403,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,918,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,797,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,836,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (120,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                31,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,073,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,073,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,073,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    35.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1299 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1299

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the operation of 
    vehicles on certain Wisconsin highways, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 16 (legislative day, July 15), 2013

 Ms. Baldwin (for herself and Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the operation of 
    vehicles on certain Wisconsin highways, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN WISCONSIN HIGHWAYS.

    Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Wisconsin Highways.--If any 
segment of the United States Route 41 corridor, as described in section 
1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1211) is designated as a route on the 
Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment 
before the date of that designation may continue to operate on that 
segment, without regard to any requirement under subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to §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 result of operations of the
Company. Date: November 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Edward F. McKernanEdward F. McKernanChief Executive Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000438

15-OCT-2018

11:57 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                      24,948,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,654,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                   352,508
<INVENTORY>                                  1,539,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,719,100
<PP&E>                                     235,943,688
<DEPRECIATION>                              82,519,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             209,904,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      255,711,704
<BONDS>                                      2,751,526
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       31,485,589
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,080
<OTHER-SE>                                (80,099,842)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               209,904,057
<SALES>                                      7,250,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,368,105
<CGS>                                        3,288,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,601,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,161)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,330
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,404,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,025,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,025,552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,025,552)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Support Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P-03-194

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT -2011-0577

# Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P-03-194

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

PMN P-03-194

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P-03-194

# A-001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-03-194

# A-002

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-03-194

# A-003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-03-194
Exhibit 23.1





The Board of Directors and Stockholders


TransMontaigne Inc.:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-23691) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-04405, 333-15055, 333-34579 and 333-71724) on Form S-8 of TransMontaigne Inc. of our report dated September 13, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of TransMontaigne
Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, preferred stock and common stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2002, which
report appears in the June 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of TransMontaigne Inc.











LOGO





Denver, Colorado


September 25, 2002
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

In connection with the Annual Report of TM Century, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teri R.S. James, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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/  Teri R.S. James
--------------------

Chief Financial Officer

December 23, 2003