alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Maria Mateo, Plaintiff-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Julius Anokwuru, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered on or about February 12, 2016, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding her damages in the principal sum of $24,810.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered on or about February 12, 2016, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new trial on damages.</p><p>Plaintiff-tenant leased a studio apartment in a house owned by defendant-owner. Defendant subsequently relocated plaintiff to a basement "apartment" in the house, which was not a legal residential unit. In March 2014, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development's (HPD) issued a vacate order requiring plaintiff to vacate the basement unit within one day. This action arises from plaintiff's residence in that basement unit.</p><p>A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the conditions in the basement were "deplorable and disgusting." However, the court applied an incorrect measure of damages when it awarded tenant a refund of some 35 months of rent. Having received the benefit of shelter, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the rent paid (<i>see Elkar Realty Corp. v Kamada</i>, 6 AD2d 155 [1958]; <i>Goho Equities v Weiss</i>, 149 Misc 2d 628 [App Term, 1st Dept 1991]; <i>Schotz-Powers Co., Inc. v Treidler</i>, 128 Misc 466 [App Term, 1st Dept 1926]).</p><p>When the warranty of habitability is breached, a tenant may seek an abatement irrespective of whether the unit is a lawful dwelling. The correct measure of damages for breach of the warranty of habitability "is the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach" (<i>Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell</i>, 47 NY2d 316, 329 [1979], <i>cert denied </i>444 US 992 [1979]). The matter is remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 11, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 19, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14350

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-01617-JOF

GWENDOLYN BLACK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 19, 2012)

Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the grant of defendants/appellees’s, UnitedHealth

Group Incorporated, and UnitedHealth Group Long-Term Disability Plan

(UnitedHealth), motion for summary judgment, against plaintiff/appellant,

Gwendolyn Black (Black), and, the denial of Black’s motion for summary

judgment. 

1

Black was employed by United HealthCare Services as a telephone

registered nurse case manager. When multiple health issues presented, she applied

for long-term disability benefits. Black claims on appeal that UnitedHealth

wrongfully denied her claim for long-term disability benefits.

We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs, and the arguments of

counsel. The record indicates that UnitedHealth denied benefits to Black after

three independent reviewing physicians separately determined that she was not

disabled under the terms of the plan. In light of that evidence, we agree with the

district court that UnitedHealth’s decision was neither arbitary nor unreasonable.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

As to Count Four of Black’s complaint only, the district court granted in part, and denied 1

in part, Black’s motion for summary judgment. In all other respects, it denied Black’s motion for

summary judgment.

As to Count Four, in an effort to encourage plan administrators to promptly respond to

requests for documents, the district court penalized UnitedHealth $10 per day for each day that Black

was denied the information she requested. UnitedHealth was directed to pay Black $1,120, in

statutory penalties, for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4).

2
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1

                   Amendment to the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan

(a) To delete the present Article 4 and to substitute the following in its
place:

4.   STOCK SUBJECT TO PLAN

     The total number of shares of Stock reserved and available for distribution
under this Plan shall be 1.5 million. Such shares may consist, in whole or in
part, of authorized and unissued shares or treasury shares. If any shares of
Stock that have been optioned cease to be subject to option or if any shares
subject to any Restricted Stock or Deferred Stock award granted hereunder are
forfeited or such award otherwise terminates, those shares shall again be
available for distribution in connection with future awards under this Plan.

     In the event of any merger, reorganization, consolidation,
recapitalization, stock dividend, or other change in corporate structure
affecting the Stock, a substitution or adjustment shall be made in the aggregate
number of shares reserved for issuance under this Plan, in the number and option
price of shares subject to outstanding Stock Options and Director Stock Options
granted under this Plan, and in the number of shares subject to Restricted Stock
or Deferred Stock awards granted under this Plan, in such manner as may be
determined to be appropriate by the Committee, in its sole discretion, provided
that the number of shares subject to any award shall always be a whole number.

(b) To delete the present Article 5 and to substitute the following in its
place:

5.   ELIGIBILITY

     5.1 Employees of the Company or its subsidiaries (but excluding members of
the Committee and any person who serves only as a director) who are responsible
for or contribute to the management, growth, and/or profitability of the
business of the Company or its Subsidiaries, are eligible to be granted Stock
Options, Restricted Stock or Deferred Stock awards. The term "employee" is
defined as any employee, employee-director, officer, consultant, or advisor,
provided that bona fide services shall be rendered by consultants or advisors
and such services must not be in connection with the offer or sale of securities
in a capital-raising transaction.

     5.2 Directors of the Company (other than directors who are also officers or
employees of the Company or its Subsidiaries) are eligible to be granted
Director Stock Options pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan.

     5.3 The optionees and participants under this Plan shall be selected from
time to time by the Committee, in its sole discretion, from among those
eligible, and the Committee shall determine, in its sole discretion, the number
of shares covered by each award or grant to an optionee or participant.

                                       31
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60200

Summary Calendar

BURIM HALITI,

Petitioner,

versus

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A 075 376 816

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Burim Haliti petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-60200

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider its dismissal 

of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen. He contends that the immigration judge (“IJ”) erred in denying his motion to reopen and that the BIA 

erred in affirming that denial. He contends that his removal proceedings 

should have been reopened because he never received notice of his hearing. 

On October 16, 2012, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Haliti’s motion 

to reopen and dismissed Haliti’s appeal. Haliti did not file with this court a 

petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal but instead filed with 

the BIA a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Because Haliti did not 

file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s order dated October 16, 2012, this 

court lacks jurisdiction over that order. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405−06 

(1995); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). This court’s 

jurisdiction therefore extends only to the BIA’s February 27, 2013, order denying Haliti’s motion for reconsideration.

Although Haliti filed a timely petition for review of the BIA’s denial of

his motion for reconsideration, he fails to analyze the BIA’s reasons for denying 

the motion, which the BIA provided in a clearly worded, succinct opinion.

Haliti has therefore abandoned the only issue that is before this court, which 

is whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of 

jurisdiction and DENIED in part. 

2

 Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
<PAGE>16


                                                          EXHIBIT 11 
                                                          ----------

                          MARK IV INDUSTRIES, INC. 
      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)
           For the Three Month Period Ended May 31, 1997 and 1996 
               (Amounts in thousands, except per share data) 

                                                       Three Months
                                                      Ended May 31,  
                                                    -----------------  
                                                    1997         1996
PRIMARY

Shares outstanding: 
  Weighted average number of 
   shares outstanding                              65,500       66,300
  Net effect of dilutive stock
   options (1)                                        500          400
    Total                                          66,000       66,700

Income from continuing operations                 $30,100      $27,300
Income from discontinued operations                  -           1,200
    Net income                                    $30,100      $28,500

Income per share from continuing operations       $   .46      $   .41
Income per share from discontinued operations         -            .02
    Net income per share (2)                      $   .46      $   .43


FULLY-DILUTED

Shares outstanding: 
  Weighted average number of
   shares outstanding                              65,500       66,300
  Net effect of dilutive stock 
   options (1)                                        500          400
    Total                                          66,000       66,700

Income from continuing operations                 $30,100      $27,300
Income from discontinued operations                  -           1,200
    Net income                                    $30,100      $28,500

Income per share from continuing operations       $   .46      $   .41
Income per share from discontinued operations         -            .02
    Net income per share                          $   .46      $   .43

------------------------------------ 
(1)   The net effects for the three month period ended May 31, 1997 and 1996
      are based upon the treasury stock method using the average market price
      during the periods for the primary amounts, and the higher of the
      average market price or the market price at the end of the period for
      the fully-diluted amounts. 
(2)   Primary earnings per share have been reported in the Company's 
      financial statements based only upon the shares of common stock
      outstanding, since the dilutive effect of the stock options 
      is not considered to be material.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains summary financial information  extracted
from  the  balance  sheet and statements of operations  found  on
pages  3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date,
and  is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,941
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       150,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (148,941)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (99,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (99,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|Massachusetts Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Power Consumers  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Massachusetts Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Power Consumers  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 117,259 | 101,682 | 93,126 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 88,089  | 96,294  | 128,852 | 169,252 | 157,400 | 152,429 | 168,970 | 183,231 | 154,984 | 150,161
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 185,842 | 185,903 | 179,598 | 154,217 | 134,858 | 156,795 | 156,433 | 162,967 | 133,711 | 112,746
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 104,718 | 111,512 | 119,079 | 109,583 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Siebels v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue

111,583

08/20/2015

Denied. ..

Unpublished
EXHIBIT 32.3   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 on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gary J. Wolter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Gary J. WolterGary J. Wolter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 6, 2009
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries



|                                                   |  |                 |   |  |                                           
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- | - |  | ------------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                                   |  | PercentageOwned |   |  | State or OtherJurisdictionof Incorporation
|United Community Bank (2)                          |  | 100             | % |  | United States                             
|United Community Bank Financial Services, Inc. (3) |  | 100             |   |  | Indiana                                   

---

|(1) | Operations of United Community Bancorps wholly owned direct subsidiary, United Community Bank and United Community Banks wholly owned subsidiary are included in United
Community Bancorps consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Second-tier subsidiary of United Community Bancorp 100% owned by United Community Bank, a first-tier subsidiary of United Community Bancorp.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2019057EN.01000201.xml

| 13.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9268 — Macquarie/JERA Power International/Ørsted InvestCo/Swancor/Formosa 1 Wind Power)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 57/03)

On 1 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9268. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9268. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Julia H. STEINBRENNER f/k/a Julia Vinas, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Leonel VINAS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-92

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 2, 2017

L.T. No.: 2016-DR-6204

Dismissed.