alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
128 P.3d 350

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI‘I

#### AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., Inc. v. Pain Management Clinic of Hawai'i, Inc.

26743

01/09/2006

Vacated & remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 29,
1997 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                                  41,984
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           16,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                             43,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       107,570
<PP&E>                                                  10,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         118,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   63,801
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                   189
<OTHER-SE>                                            (105,998)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           118,753
<SALES>                                                 21,715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        21,715
<CGS>                                                   13,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           13,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        16,543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (8,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (8,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (8,448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2018328EN.01002801.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18)

(2018/C 328/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant (appellant): AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Question referred

Is it consistent with European Union law and in particular with the principle of VAT neutrality for a Member State to adopt a measure which makes the assessment and payment of part of a VAT deduction claimed conditional on the completion of a procedure applying to all taxable transactions in a given tax period?

---
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 American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  John C.  Stuecheli, Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


 /s/ John C. Stuecheli

 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer
 January 13, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS*

I, Robert Desrosiers, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Hockey Company;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  August 12, 2003
                                                /s/ Robert Desrosiers
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Robert Desrosiers
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 69 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 69

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' 
            Affairs in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

  Mr. Miller of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' 
            Affairs in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $7,505,092.00 for the One Hundred 
Fourteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $3,752,546.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2015, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2016; and
            (2) not more than $3,752,546.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2016, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2017.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6239

ERIC LAMONT YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-97-443, CA-00-2453) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Lamont Young, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM:Eric Lamont Young appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and denying reconsideration of that order. In an action in which the United States is a party, parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order dismissing Young’s § 2255 motion was entered on October 17, 2000. Young’s notice of appeal was filed on December 30, 2000. * Young filed his motion to reconsider more than ten days from the district court's order dismissing his § 2255 motion, consequently the time period for filing his appeal of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Young's appeal is only timely as to the district court's3 order denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration, construed here under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See, e.g. , Small v. Hunt , 98 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 1996). This Court reviews denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court's order denying Young's motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Young's appeal as to both district court orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21. Subsidiaries of the Registrant


     The Company has four wholly-owned subsidiaries. All others listed are
either direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Bank.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY                 STATE OF INCORPORATION
---------------------------                 ----------------------

Mid America Bank, fsb                       United States
MAF Developments, Inc.                      Illinois
Mid Town Development Corporation            Illinois
Equitable Finance Corp.                     Illinois


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK                    STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------------                    ----------------------

Mid America Investment Services, Inc.       Illinois
Mid America Insurance Agency, Inc.          Illinois
Mid America Finance Corporation             Illinois
Mid America Mortgage Securities, Inc.       Illinois
N.W. Financial Corporation                  Illinois
Ambria Development Corporation              Illinois
Randall Road Development Corporation        Illinois
Centre Point Title Services, Inc.           Illinois
Reigate Woods Development Corporation       Illinois
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - III                Delaware
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - IV                 Delaware
Mid America Re, Inc.                        Vermont
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Jerome J. Gassen, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameriana Bancorp,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameriana Bancorp; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’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 registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 27, 2006
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 30919 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Deverrick Martell Winfield,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:22

- CR

- 170

- 1

**______________________________** Before **Elrod, Haynes,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Deverrick Martell Winfield appeals the 188

- month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine. Winfield argues that, in calculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court erred in concluding that his prior conviction for the offense of Louisiana

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30919 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024No. 23

- 30919

2 second degree robbery constituted a “crime of violence , ” as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Specifically, he contends that Louisiana second degree robbery is a general intent crime that can be committed negligently or recklessly. Thus, it does not satisfy the force clause in § 4B1.2(a)(1) and is not equivalent to the enumerated offense of robbery in § 4B1.2(a)(2)

. Because Winfield raised this argument in the district court, our review is de

novo
. See United States v. Garner , 28 F.4th 678, 681 (5th Cir. 2022). Winfield pleaded guilty in 2010 to Louisiana second degree robbery. The statute provides today, as it did in 2010, that “[s]econd degree robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another when the offender intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury .” **La. Stat. Ann.** § 14:64.4. L ouisiana appellate court s ha ve held that Louisiana second degree robbery requires the defendant to act with specific intent ; the defendant mus t actively desire to inflict serious bodily injury. See State v. Allen , 934 So. 2d 146, 152

- 53 (La. Ct. App. 2006); see also State v. Fuller , 414 So. 2d 306, 309

- 10 (La. 1982) (interpreting a similarly worded statute). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that L ouisiana second degree robbery is a specific intent crime and a crime of violence for purposes of § 4B1.2(a). See Allen , 934 So. 2d at 152

- 54; see also United States v. Parker , 3 F.4th 178, 181 n.16 (5th Cir. 2021) (indicating that a Louisiana offense’s status as a specific intent crime satisfies the identical force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act ). The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-30919 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
# Intraherd_Sample_Size_Matrix

of    

Input a value only if different than default

Input  value is required.
# C_2019182EN.01003201.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — ABB AB v EUIPO (FLEXLOADER)

(Case T-373/18) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXLOADER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Neologism - Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for)

(2019/C 182/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER for:







  — | the ‘mechanical tools for the application of humectant, binders, oilers, lubricants or dyes’, within Class 7 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER for:

—

the ‘mechanical tools for the application of humectant, binders, oilers, lubricants or dyes’, within Class 7 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957; and

| — | the ‘electronic data entry and data processing devices, microprocessors, electrical input and output unit, compact discs, floppy disks, magnetic tapes and semiconductors for the storage of technical data’, within Class 9 of the Nice Arrangement. |
| --- | --- |

—

the ‘electronic data entry and data processing devices, microprocessors, electrical input and output unit, compact discs, floppy disks, magnetic tapes and semiconductors for the storage of technical data’, within Class 9 of the Nice Arrangement.

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ABB AB and EUIPO to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ABB AB and EUIPO to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---