alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 'poCV^ r

doO< < -^^ ^ ISACKSON , WALLAC E& PFEIFER , P.C . ATTORNEY S A TLA W 11 4 S . SECON D AVENU E •' , r.THcM T(v T ALPENA , MICHIGA N4970 7 KEITHWALLAC E- • '^'t\\l^'jir- ; ^J^i:, , (989 ) 354-824 2 WILLIAM A . PFEIFER• ; ^ -jS r Ui i IA l lU NFA X(989 ) 356-336 9 NANC YA . WARD .'CTOppqATirV'-IQ . DYLA NJ . WALLAC E' - "' ' '' ' " ' '- " ' " ISADOREISACKSO N(1901-1988 )

, , , . , , JMovemberlO , 201 1 ! L i Ai PUZ Departmen t o fTransportatio n Attn : Kevi n Adam s Re : Ai rServic e t o Alpen a Count yRegiona l Airport Dea rMr . Adams : Pleas e conside rth e followin g issue s regardin g ai rservic e t o th e Alpen a Regiona l Airport . Alpen a need s guarantee d code-sharin g (integrate d reservatio n system) . * Ove r3 millio n dollar s i n Essentia l Ai rServic e subsid yfo rles s servic e i s no t a goo d us e o ftaxpaye r money . I fAlpen a passenger s experienc e a cancelle d fligh t i n Cleveland , ther e ar e veryfe w option s i n gettin g hom e whe n compare d t o Detroit . Th e curren t bi d doe s no t giv e u s clea rexpectation s o n ticke t price s i n al l situations . Th e plane s propose d ar e muc h smalle r- wit h n o restrooms . Althoug h th e ai rtim e i s 4 5 minutes , th e actua l tim e o n th e plan e i s muc h longer , possibl yleavin g peopl e i n a very uncomfortabl e situation . Alpen a deserve s bette r- th e Alpen a Comba t Readines s Trainin g Cente ran d th e Thunde r Ba yNationa l Marin e Sanctuaryhav e a veryimportan t nee d fo rreliabl e ai rservic e tha t th e curren t bid s d o no t meet . Th e curren t bidde rdoe s no t hav e a stron g networ k o fsupport . Ther e ar e a limite d numbe r ofplane s availabl e fo rthe m t o serv e thei rmarket(s ) s o wher e doe s tha t leav e u s whe n a plan e experience s mechanica l issues ? Clevelan d i s no t a gatewa yairport an d woul d ad d a n extr a sto p t o mos t flights . Thi s add s tim e an d expens e t o ou rtravelers . Th e communit ywoul d lik e th e DO Tt o re-bi d servic e t o Alpen a s o w e ca n fin d a bette r solution . Mor e tim e i s neede d becaus e th e issu e i s mor e abou t lac k ofcompetitio n tha n i t i s abou t cos t an d w e nee d timi e t o fin d th e bes t solutio n fo ral l partie s involved . Alpena' s traffi ci s u p tw o year s i n a ro wan d ou rprojections , base d o n economi c developmen t project s an d activit ysho wcontinue d increase s i n traffic . Cancelle d seat s ar e currentl ybein g use d whe n figurin g loa d factor s an d ar e drivin g tha t percentag e down . Seat s o n cancelle d flight s shoul d no t b e counte d a s ope n seat s whe n figurin g loa d factors . Sincerely , Isackson , Wallac e & Pfeifer , P.C . Keit h Wallac e
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,128)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,957
<PP&E>                                          53,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,444)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,505
<BONDS>                                         25,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,280
<SALES>                                          5,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,822
<CGS>                                            4,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (306)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,093
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 344 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 344

    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2013

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Competitive Health Insurance Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR 
              INSURERS.

    (a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to 
the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding 
sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in 
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that 
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.''.
    (b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies 
to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 
without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, 
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained in section 
4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### HARNEY, Sheriff, v. WOOD, District Judge, et al.

No. 14532.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 18, 1942.

B. D. Tarlton and James B. Hubbard, both of Corpus Christi, for petitioner.

Gerald C. Mann, Edgar Pfeil, Wm. J. Fanning, Benjamin Woodall, and Ocie Speer, all of Austin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application by John B. Harney, Sheriff of Nueces County, Texas, seeking the issuance of a writ of prohibition by this Court, prohibiting the Honorable Allen Wood, Judge of the 94th District Court of Nueces County, from hearing and determining a proceeding brought by Honorable Gerald C. Mann, as Attorney General of Texas, upon the relation of several citizens of Nueces County, having for its purpose the removal of John B. Harney from the office of Sheriff of Nueces County.

 The “Writ of Prohibition” is sought upon two grounds, to-wit:

First. Because Honorable Allen Wood, as Judge of the 94th District Court of Nueces County, is without jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding, such 94th District Court allegedly being a special court and not a regular District Court.

Second. Because Honorable Gerald C. Mann, as Attorney General of Texas, has no authority under the law to institute and maintain such a proceeding.

This Court is without jurisdiction to issue the ’writ prayed for upon the grounds alleged. In this State, Courts of Civil Appeals are without jurisdiction to ‘ issue extraordinary writs, except in aid of or to enforce their appellate jurisdiction, as authorized by Article 1823, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.Stats., and to compel a Judge of the District or County Court to proceed to trial and judgment in a cause, as authorized by Article 1824, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. Yantis v. McCallum, Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 610; Elder v. Byrd-Frost, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 172; 33 Tex. Jur. p. 928; Milam County Oil Mill Co. v. Bass, 106 Tex. 260, 163 S.W. 577; Staples, Secretary of State, v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1068.

Relator relies strongly upon the case of City of Houston v. City of Palestine, 114 Tex. 306, 267 S.W. 663. It is true that the Supreme Court there held that the Court of Civil Appeals did have the jurisdiction to grant the “writ of prohibition” which it had granted, but it further appears, and especially by reading the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, found in 262 S.W. 215, that the Court of Civil Appeals granted such writ to prevent an interference with its own proper jurisdiction.

Relator’s petition does not show that our jurisdiction will be entrenched upon or interfered with in any way by the proceedings now being had in the 94th District Court of Nueces County. Not having jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition prayed for, we are without power to pass upon the other questions presented.

The petition for a writ of prohibition will be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENVIROQ CORPORATION FOR THE 6 MONTH PERIOD ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 28, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,391,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    189,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,867,364
<PP&E>                                         395,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,228,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,096,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,228,803
<SALES>                                        635,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               635,680
<CGS>                                          345,286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (71,350)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,693
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 11**  **94**

WILLIAM REID BLACK ,
P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
THE UNITED STATES ARMY; ARMY REVIEW BOARD AGENCY; CAPTAIN PULSON, Captain of Batter A 15FD; THOMAS WHITE, Secretary of Army (U.S.); JOHN M. MCHUGH, U.S. Army Special Affairs; RICK A. SCHWEIGERT, Chief Congressional Special Action Officer , Defendant s - Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :13

- cv - 0 0889

- NCT

- LPA )

Submitted : May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William Reid Black , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Reid Black appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing , under 28 U.S.C

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (20 12 ) , Black’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Black

v. U .S. Army , No. 1:13

- cv - 00889

- NCT

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Jan. 23,
2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

EFRAIN MALDONADO RIVERA , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1253

[ September 17, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph Marx , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2011

- CF

- 13345

- AXXX

- MB

.

Robert David Malove of the Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance re quired for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., G ERBER and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### HANCOCK v. STATE.

No. 26230.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The penalty assessed is a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10QSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000095898
<NAME> SWISS CHALET , INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1375,0495
<SECURITIES>                                 1,252,764
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     42,643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,817,048
<PP&E>                                       6,029,965
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,851,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,101,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          472,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       700,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,828,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,101,663
<SALES>                                        901,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,019,184
<CGS>                                           17,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               887,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            114,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5030-15T1

PAONESSA COLON & RECTAL

SURGERY, P.C.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CERNERO CHILDREN'S TRUST and

JMC MANAGEMENT GROUP,

Defendants/Third-party 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NINA PAONESSA, individually and as

Guarantor of Paonessa Colon & 

Rectal Surgery, P.C.,

Third-Party Defendant/

Respondent.

Submitted September 6, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L0825-15.

James F. Weber, attorney for appellants.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

September 15, 2017
2 A-5030-15T1

McOmber & McOmber, P.C., attorneys for 

respondents (R. Armen McOmber, of counsel and 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

R. 1:7-4 directs trial judges to render findings of fact and 

conclusions of law "on every motion decided by a written order 

that is appealable as of right. . . ." That basic tenet has been 

often repeated. The absence of the analysis that leads a judge 

to his or her conclusion makes our review impossible. After all, 

we exercise a limited role on appeal. We do not disturb findings 

of fact or conclusions of law unless convinced "they are so 

manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, 

relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the 

interests of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins.

Co., 65 N.J 474, 484 (1974), see also Petrozzi v. City of Ocean 

City, 433 N.J. Super. 290, 316-317 (App. Div. 2014). 

On April 29, 2016, summary judgment was granted to plaintiff

Paonessa Colon and Rectal Surgery, P.C. Defendants Cernero 

Children's Trust and JMC Management Group are plaintiff's landlord

and property managers respectively. The underlying dispute 

involved the cost of defendants' fit out of rental premises for 

plaintiff's use as a medical office. 

On June 10, 2016, the court denied reconsideration of that 

decision, and separately granted $16,775.77 in attorney's fees and 
3 A-5030-15T1

$1,304.99 in costs to plaintiff, without any explanation 

whatsoever. The order awarding fees and costs is now appealed, 

and we are constrained to vacate it. The matter is remanded for 

the judge to comply with the rule, and render findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. We do not express any opinion as to the 

appropriate outcome. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.01   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 Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: December 21, 2010  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 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
S.D. WARREN COMPANY'S (THE "COMPANY") CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED APRIL 1, 1998 AND BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 1, 1998 FOUND
IN PAGE 5 AND 6, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 1, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1998
<CASH>                                          77,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,900  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,400
<INVENTORY>                                    194,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,600
<PP&E>                                       1,208,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 253,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,561,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,700
<BONDS>                                        633,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          111,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,561,600
<SALES>                                        719,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               719,500
<CGS>                                          553,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  623,100 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,500     
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        


</TABLE>