alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50618

Summary Calendar

BENNY OCHOA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CV-737

March 23, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benny Ochoa appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social

Security’s denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Ochoa

arguesthat there is no substantial evidence to support theCommissioner’sfinding that he can perform

light work. Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the decision was supported by substantial

evidence and the proper legalstandards were used in evaluating the evidence. See Villa v. Sullivan,

895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).
2

The Commissioner’s finding that Ochoa could perform light work was based in part on

Ochoa’s testimony that he could occasionally lift up to 20 pounds and in part on the medical record

which contained nothing showing that Ochoa was physically unable to perform light work. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (definition of light work); Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir.

1990).

Ochoa arguesthat theCommissioner’s decision failed to evaluate his complaints of pain under

the criteria set forth in Social Security Ruling 88-13. See Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630, 633

(5th Cir. 1989). Contrary to his assertions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered these

factors pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding

that Ochoa’stestimonyregarding hisfunctionallimitations and painwas notsupported bythe medical

record and was not credible. See Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994); Jones v.

Heckler, 702 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 1983).

Finally, Ochoa has not given any authority for his assertion that a vocational expert isrequired

when availability of jobs in the national economy is determined by application of the MedicalVocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, table 2. When nonexertional

impairments do not significantly affect a claimant’s residual functioning capacity, exclusive reliance

on the Guidelines is proper. See Selders, 914 F.2d at 618; Dominick v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 130, 1333

(5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                       EXHIBIT 5

                             Baker & Botts, L.L.P.
                                One Shell Plaza
                                 910 Louisiana
                           Houston, Texas 77002-4995


                                                               November 18, 1996



Imperial Holly Corporation
One Imperial Square, Suite 200
8016 Highway 90-A
Sugar Land, Texas 77487


Gentlemen:

          At your request, this opinion of counsel is being furnished to you for
filing as Exhibit 5 to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration
Statement") to be filed by Imperial Holly Corporation, a Texas corporation (the
"Company"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, relating to the proposed offering of up to 500,000 shares
of the Company's common stock, without par value (the "Shares"), pursuant to the
Company's Nonemployee Director Compensation Plan (the "Plan").

          We have examined the Restated Articles of Incorporation and By-laws of
the Company and the originals, or copies certified or otherwise identified, of
the Plan, corporate records of the Company, including minute books of the
Company as furnished to us by the Company, certificates of public officials and
of representatives of the Company, statutes and other records, instruments and
documents pertaining to the Company as a basis for the opinion hereinafter
expressed.  In giving such opinion we have relied upon certificates of officers
of the Company with respect to the accuracy of the material factual matters
contained in such certificates.

          Based upon our examination as aforesaid, we are of the opinion that
the Shares, when issued pursuant to the provisions of the Plan, will be duly
authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

          We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion of counsel as Exhibit
5 to the Registration Statement.


                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/ Baker & Botts, L.L.P.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: Z.L., a Minor

738 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-AP-0001295-2016, CP-51-DP-0002630-2014 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
ex10x11.htm


Exhibit 10.11


 







Venaxis, Inc.


 


Non-Employee Director Compensation


 



	
Type of Compensation

	
Amount


	
Monthly Cash Retainer for Non-Employee Directors

	
$  1,000


	
Stock Option Awards

	
(1)


	
Other Compensation

	
(2)












 


___________________


 



	
(1)

	
Non-employee directors typically receive a stock option award upon joining the Board, that is two times the annual grant, and then typically receive annual grants, which may be pro-rated in the first year after joining the Board.  In 2013 and 2014, the annual grant was stock options to acquire 26,000 shares of common stock.  The non-executive Chair of the Board typically receives an annual grant that is 150% of the non-employee director annual grant.







 



	
(2)

	
Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 113 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 113

 Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the 
                           Nation's Capital.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1998

Mrs. Morella (for herself, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Cummings), introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the 
                           Nation's Capital.

Whereas section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 
        (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157) authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha 
        Fraternity to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of 
        Columbia to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.;
Whereas section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1006(a)) provides 
        that the location of a commemorative work in the area described as Area 
        I (within the meaning of the Act) shall be deemed not authorized unless 
        approved by law not later than 150 days after notification to Congress 
        that the Secretary of the Interior recommends location of the 
        commemorative work in Area I; and
Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of the 
        recommendation of the Secretary that the memorial be located in Area I: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

    The location of the commemorative work to honor Martin Luther King, 
Jr., authorized by section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157), within 
Area I is approved under section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act 
(40 U.S.C. 1006(a)).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER 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 Nano-Textile Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of Erez Ovdat and Shlomo
Zakai does certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:



(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/ Erez Ovdat          | /s/ Shlomo Zakai       
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|Erez Ovdat              | Shlomo Zakai           
|Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |                        
|Date: April 26, 2016    | Date:  April 26, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8710 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8710

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization 
 period for emergency treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs 
     medical facilities under the Veterans Community Care Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2020

    Mr. Higgins of New York (for himself, Mr. Rose of New York, Mr. 
   Panetta, Ms. Wild, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Case, Mr. San 
  Nicolas, and Mr. Morelle) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization 
 period for emergency treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs 
     medical facilities under the Veterans Community Care Program.

    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 ``Veterans Community Care Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION PERIOD FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT IN NON-DEPARTMENT 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITIES.

    Section 1703(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``A covered veteran'' and inserting ``(A) 
        Subject to subparagraph (B), a covered veteran''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) In the case of an emergency which existed at the time 
        of admission of a covered veteran to a health care provider and 
        as a condition of authorization under subparagraph (A), the 
        Secretary shall require that, during the 30-day period 
        following such admission, the covered veteran (or an individual 
        acting on behalf of the covered veteran) submit to the 
        Secretary notification of the care or services received by the 
        veteran during such admission.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,902,914
<SECURITIES>                                   407,868
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,130,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,086
<INVENTORY>                                    816,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,244,822
<PP&E>                                       2,255,019
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,797,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,754,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,331,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,552
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,430,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,754,532
<SALES>                                      4,939,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,939,654
<CGS>                                        3,155,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,155,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               920,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (24,296)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (101,242)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (146,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (146,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (146,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
# C_2022037EN.01005201.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/52

---

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)

(Case T-747/21)

(2022/C 37/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kitzberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: David Neng (Brüggen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fohlenelf’ — EU trade mark No 12 246 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2021 in Case R 2126/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the applicant, including the costs incurred in the previous proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the applicant, including the costs incurred in the previous proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,219,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  775,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,466
<INVENTORY>                                     29,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,458,868
<PP&E>                                       2,028,357
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,556,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,706,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,764,984
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          357,333
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,350
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,531,973)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,706,884
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,137,634
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,977,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,039
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            152,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023271EN.01001101.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/11

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — DV v Direktor na Teritorialno podelenie na Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut — Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-30/22, (1) Direktor na Teritorialno podelenie na Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut — Veliko Tarnovo)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Migrant workers - Unemployment - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Social security - Article 30 - Determination of entitlement to unemployment benefits - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 65(2) - Member State national who has been employed in the United Kingdom - Termination of his or her employment contract after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and the end of the transition period set by that agreement - Entitlement of that national to unemployment benefit under the legislation of that Member State upon his or her return to that Member State)

(2023/C 271/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DV

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialno podelenie na Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut — Veliko Tarnovo

Operative part of the order

Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012,

must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which a person seeks unemployment benefits from the competent authority of a Member State in which he or she has not completed periods of insurance, employment or self-employment and to the territory of which he or she returns after a period of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in another State, in which he or she resided, within the meaning of that provision, throughout that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
# C_2022011EN.01003701.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/37

---

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Rolex v EUIPO — PWT (Device of a crown)

(Case T-726/21)

(2022/C 11/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rolex SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PWT A/S (Aalborg, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a crown) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 263 679

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2021 in Case R 2389/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs, or in the alternative (if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes) that EUIPO and the other party do severally and jointly pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs, or in the alternative (if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes) that EUIPO and the other party do severally and jointly pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10367.

#### Langley *v.*Louisiana.

Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.