alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Suzanne J. Becker, Appellant, v Amabek, Inc., Doing Business as Suzannes, Inc., Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 24, 1990, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

While there is no dispute that claimant suffered from anorexia nervosa, the Workers’ Compensation Board was presented with conflicting medical opinions on the question of the causal relationship between her condition and her work activities. This merely raised a factual issue for the Board to resolve *(see, Matter of Adler v Guild Elecs.,*97 AD2d 606). Here, although it was the opinion of claimant’s physicians that her work history either caused or contributed to her condition, both the carrier’s physician and the impartial specialist determined that the condition was not a work-related illness. Under these circumstances, because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld *(see, Matter of Ehrlich v Chock Full O’Nuts Corp.,*146 AD2d 878).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# C_2011311EN.01003602.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (internal combustion engine)

(Case T-11/08) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Visible features of a component part of a complex product - No different overall impression - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2011/C 311/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath, W. Festl-Wietek and M. Wetzel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: T. Musmann, H. Timmann, M. Büttner and S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1380/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
# C_2009082EN.01003602.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 — Stols v Council

(Case F-51/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Manifest error of assessment)

(2009/C 82/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Mr Bauer and Ms Balta, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

The annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision not to include the applicant on the list of those promoted to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of 16 July 2007 and of 5 February 2008 by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote Mr Stols to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of 16 July 2007 and of 5 February 2008 by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote Mr Stols to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 34.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2012, THROUGH MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma 
sessions only, with no business conducted, on the following dates and 
times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn 
until the next pro forma session: Friday, August 3, at 10:15 a.m.; 
Tuesday, August 7, at 11 a.m.; Friday, August 10, at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, 
August 14, at 2:30 p.m.; Friday, August 17, at 11:30 a.m.; Tuesday, 
August 21, at 10 a.m.; Friday, August 24, at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, August 
28, at 2:30 p.m.; Friday, August 31, at 11:30 a.m.; Tuesday, September 
4, at 11:30 a.m.; and Friday, September 7, at 12 noon; and that the 
Senate adjourn on Friday, September 7, until 2 p.m. on Monday, 
September 10, unless the Senate has received a message from the House 
that it has adopted S. Con. Res 59, which is the adjournment 
resolution, and that if the Senate has received such a message, the 
Senate adjourn until Monday, September 10, at 2 p.m., under the 
provisions of S. Con. Res. 59; that following the prayer and pledge, 
the Journal be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and 
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the 
day; that the majority leader be recognized and Senators be permitted 
to speak for up to 10 minutes each; and that at 5 p.m. the Senate 
proceed to executive session under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2 - CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of AMFM Operating Inc. (the "Issuer"). The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(o)(d)) and that the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: March 28, 2003

By: /s/ RANDALL T. MAYS
    -------------------
Name: Randall T. Mays
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14308

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00326-TWT-JFK-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PETER RAYMOND WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 5, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Franco, appointed counsel for Peter Raymond Williams in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant 

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

Case: 12-14308 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel=s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel=s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Williams=s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14308 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2008327EN.01001101.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

(Case C-411/08)

(2008/C 327/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Rule 5 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 — Combined Nomenclature (CN)) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that capsule casings which consist of granulated starch and contain substances for supplementing the diet are to be regarded as packing material? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Rule 5 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 — Combined Nomenclature (CN)) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that capsule casings which consist of granulated starch and contain substances for supplementing the diet are to be regarded as packing material?

1

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative:
  Is heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that granulated starch capsule casings containing 580 mg of concentrated wheat-germ oil determine the character of the goods in such a way that the goods are excluded from heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative:

Is heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that granulated starch capsule casings containing 580 mg of concentrated wheat-germ oil determine the character of the goods in such a way that the goods are excluded from heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1230
                         THE BUYING OF AMERICA

  (Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, when the Supreme Court decided Citizens 
United, it opened the floodgates to special interests. This country is 
faced, for the first time, with a small number influencing our 
elections, something that we've never experienced before. Let us all 
remember that it is our elections and our right to vote which makes us 
the great nation that we are. It is what people have gone to war for 
and died for.
  But now we're seeing the buying of America. We have been told that 
about 600 super PACs have raised over $240 million, and they've already 
spent over $113 million on our elections. We do know that the 
Republican donors are famous brothers, and they, with their friends, 
have spent about $400 million in the upcoming election. And we also 
know that there's a Republican donor casino owner who has already spent 
$71 million to affect our elections.
  We can't prohibit the spending, but we can require transparency so 
that the public knows who is spending this money. This is the DISCLOSE 
Act. But, Madam Speaker, Republicans have stopped the vote on the 
DISCLOSE Act. The Democrats have signed the discharge petition to bring 
it up to vote. We must bring it up to vote, Madam Speaker. We must show 
the people that America is not for sale.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           670,274
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          857,451
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            847,832
<EQUITIES>                                      48,262
<MORTGAGE>                                     184,326
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   22,417
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,018,852
<CASH>                                          96,069
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,247
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          72,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,830,710
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,148,504
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             32,128
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  30,959
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           81,442
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                133,312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,830,710
<PREMIUMS>                                     165,602
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            186,725
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              15,705
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,567
<BENEFITS>                                     218,659
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      3,326
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            56,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,513
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 2,727.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups






	EXHIBIT 10.26



KEVIN BRUEGGEMAN. In regards to the
    Employment Letter between Kevin Brueggeman and WRC Media Inc., as of July
    17, 2003, Mr. Brueggeman’s title is Chief Operating Officer of AGS,
    with a base salary
of $225,000, payable in accordance with AGS’ customary practices, with an
annual non-discretionary incentive payout up to 50% of base salary based on successful
attainment of financial goals approved by the Board of Directors. Mr.
Brueggeman is also eligible, based on his performance, for a discretionary bonus
of up to 25% of his base salary. Mr. Brueggeman is entitled to 20 days of paid
vacation per year and other benefits to which comparably-situated executives
are entitled. Mr. Brueggeman is entitled to severance
equal to 12 months of his then current base salary, plus any non-discretionary
bonuses earned pro-rated for that portion of the calendar year for which he was
employed.

140
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           RECOGNIZING FLEX-A-LITE ON THEIR 50TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ADAM SMITH

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Flex-a-lite 
company, a Fife, Washington manufacturer for their 50 years of American 
manufacturing. The company has continuously set itself apart from its 
competition in the automotive industry by promoting strong domestic 
sales and rarely outsourcing manufacturing abroad.
  Eddy Davis, along with his son-in-law, Rainer Willingham, founded 
Flex-a-lite in 1962. The company dramatically changed the automotive 
world, by inventing the very first flexible fan created from hand-cut 
fiberglass roofing material. In 1978, the founders patented the first 
electric fan and three generations later, the company continues to 
prosper.
  The current president of Flex-a-lite and granddaughter of Eddy Davis, 
Lisa Chissus, has said that the business has been able to overcome 
hardships during tough economic times because Flex-a-lite remained 
loyal to three key factors: innovation, quality, and smooth succession.
  The company has consistently produced new, innovative products and 
continues to bring new ideas to the table. Flex-a-lite takes great 
pride in their top quality products that are made and sold in the 
United States. It is clear that the business's family-owned values have 
helped to successfully guide the company for a half century.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with honor that I recognize the Flex-a-lite 
company. I am confident that Flex-a-lite will flourish for years to 
come.

                          ____________________
```
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2009 – Cofra v Commission**

**(Case C‐295/08 P)**

Appeal – Public access to documents of the institutions – Documents originating from a Member State – Objection of the Member State to disclosure of the documents – Refusal to access – New application – Confirmatory measure

1.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility
(Art. 225 EC) (see paras 33-34)*

2.                     *European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right
of access to documents – Conditions – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7)) (see paras 52-56)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2008 in Case T-478/07 | Cofra | v | Commission | by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2007 rejecting a request made by the appellant for review of that institution’s earlier refusal to allow it access to certain documents. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Cofra Srl is ordered to pay the costs. |
* 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. 00-11418 Conference Calendar

LOWELL KENT STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TARRANT COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER, Sheriff’s Department, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-1713-A

-------------------- June 18, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lowell Kent Stevens, Texas prisoner #0250811, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Even construed liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Stevens’ pro se appellate brief does not argue that his original complaint stated a claim on which relief could be granted or that his amended complaint was timely filed and stated a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, StevensNo. 00-11418 -2- has abandoned the only issues properly before this court on appeal. See Davis v. Maggio , 706 F.2d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that issues not pressed on appeal are abandoned). Stevens’ appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of Stevens’ appeal as frivolous following the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to state a claim constitutes two strikes against Stevens for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If one other action or appeal filed by Stevens is dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, he will be barred from bringing a civil action or appeal as a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANTEC CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES IN ANTEC CORPORATION'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,189
<INVENTORY>                                    127,634
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,366
<PP&E>                                          36,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 458,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,278
<BONDS>                                         95,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           384
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   458,878
<SALES>                                        120,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,034
<CGS>                                           93,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,969)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
        

</TABLE>