alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Annunziata 

COLLEEN D. HARLOW 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2386-10-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 5, 2011 

CAPITAL ONE SERVICES AND 

 ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jean M. McKeen; Tomlin & McKeen, PLLC, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Claire C. Carr; Rachel A. Riordan; Kalbaugh Pfund & Messersmith, 

on brief), for appellees. 

 Colleen D. Harlow (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission. On appeal, she contends the commission erred in (1) failing to award claimant a 

lower extremity permanent impairment rating; (2) finding claimant had no permanent 

impairment rating for her lower extremity after the commission previously determined claimant 

suffered some type of impairment rating for her lower left extremity; and (3) relying on 

Dr. Steven Fiore’s medical opinion because Dr. Fiore’s opinion failed to consider claimant’s 

sensory and neurological deficits. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion 

and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Harlow v. Capital One Servs., VWC File No. 217-37-61 

(Oct. 13, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Sanford, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 635]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing on a November 26, 2002 conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, unanimously affirmed.

The court, which granted resentencing under CPL 440.46 (1) on a December 9, 2002 conviction, correctly concluded that defendant was not entitled to resentencing under CPL 440.46 (2) on his class C felony drug conviction. That felony was set forth in a separate charging instrument, was the subject of a separate sentencing proceeding, and was adjudicated in a separate commitment order from defendant’s class B felony, notwithstanding that the sentences ran concurrently, as part of a negotiated global disposition of defendant’s pending cases. “The statutory language plainly applies where a defendant is actually committed to custody on a lower level drug felony in the same order that commits him to custody on a B felony, not where an offense for which the defendant has previously been sentenced and committed is merely referenced in the later order” (P*eople v Anonymous,*85 AD3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 922 [2012]). We may not rewrite the statute to make it fit the particular sequence of events that transpired here.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00327-CV

____________________

IN RE C.R. ENGLAND, INC.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER 

C.R. England, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator is a 

defendant in Cause No. B-194,401, Vincent Leggio, Jr., Individually and as 

Representative of the Estates of Vincent Leggio, Sr. and Debra Leggio, et al. v. 

C.R. England, Inc., et al. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Gary 

Sanderson, Judge of the 60th District Court, to vacate an order of consolidation. 

We note our jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). 
2

Relator alleges that prejudice will result if proceedings occur before the 

issues raised in the petition for writ of mandamus can be resolved.

The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It 

is ORDERED that all further proceedings in Cause No. B-194,401 are STAYED 

until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.10(b). No bond is required of the relator as a condition to any relief herein 

granted.

The responses of the real parties in interest, Vincent Leggio Jr., Richard 

Leggio, Amanda Machowicz, Cathryn M. Stegmoyer, Tamika Francois, Damion 

Francois, Terrance Bell, Devin Cash, and Richardo Fernando Kerr, are due August 

5, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.

ORDER ENTERED July 25, 2013.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2366
VIVIEN NEWTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (MISC-01-23) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vivien Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Vivien Newton appeals from the district court’s order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Newton v. Commonwealth of Virginia , No. MISC-01-23 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 26, 2001; entered Nov. 7, 2001). We deny Newton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 10-6696.

#### Richard Roland Laird, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 1069, 131 S. Ct. 659,

178 L. Ed. 2d 492,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9088.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.

Same case below, 605 Pa. 137, 988 A.2d 618.
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott E. Willkomm, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Scott E. Willkomm
------------------------

Scott E. Willkomm
President
August 12, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by
Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                        2
No. 10-5320.

#### Brian Jones, et al., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 276,

178 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6855.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 600 F.3d 847.
p120520.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: Yes PMN: 12-0520 Focus Ready Draft 9/13/2012 ENGINEER: Hall \ BCS PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER:

Page 1p120520.eng

o SAT (concerns) (08/31/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs: // Human Health Related Cases: Migration to groundwater: Rapid PBT rating: P1B3T1 Anion: P1B3T1; Cation: P1B1T1 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing desired) Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 29 ppb), XB Testing (Testing desired) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p120520.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0520

Page 3p120520.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0520

Page 4p120520.eng

Page 5p120520.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0520

Page 6p120520.eng

Page 7
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16923]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-89; RM-9279]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Hanna, WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by 
Mountain Tower Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 277C at 
Hanna, Wyoming, as the community's first local aural transmission 
service. Channel 277C can be allotted to Hanna in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) south to avoid a short-
spacing to the construction permit site for Station KQLT(FM), Channel 
279C, Casper, Wyoming. The coordinates for Channel 277C at Hanna North 
Latitude 41-49-13 and West Longitude 106-34-54.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 3, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before August 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Victor A. 
Michael, Jr., President, Mountain Tower Broadcasting, 7901 Stoneridge 
Drive, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-89, adopted June 3, 
1998, and released June 12, 1998. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-16923 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18

- 2903

_____________________________

R USSEL S MITH J R

. and T ERESA S MITH ,
Appellant,

v.

W ELLS F ARGO B ANK , etc.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County. Andrew J. Decker

, III, Judge.

July 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Aimee Jackson of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Lake City; George T. Reeves of Davis, S chnitker, Reeves & Browning, PA, Madison; for Appellant.

Joseph H. Picone and Kimberly S. Mello of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa; Mark C. Elia of Van Ness Law Firm, PA

, Deerfield Beach ; for Appellee.
No. 10-204.

#### E.S.H., Petitioner v. K.D., et al.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 597,

178 L. Ed. 2d 452,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8855.

November 15, 2010.

Motion of Center for Arizona Policy, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 990 A.2d 57.
# C_2016027EN.01003901.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-522/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Belated submission of documents - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))

(2016/C 027/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2015346EN.01001901.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — LG Electronics v Commission

(Case T-91/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture - Equal treatment - Method of calculating the fine - Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products - Limitation period - Proportionality - Duration of the administrative procedure))

(2015/C 346/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMICAS, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Stephen N. Kahane, M.D., M.S., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Joseph D. Hill, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to 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/ Stephen N. Kahane, M.D., M.S.       March 29, 2005
                          ----------------------------------      --------------
                          Stephen N. Kahane, M.D., M.S.                     Date
                          Chief Executive Officer

                          /s/ Joseph D. Hill                      March 29, 2005
                          ----------------------------------      --------------
                          Joseph D. Hill                                    Date
                          Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-11257.

#### Gregory Dew, Petitioner v. Ohio.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 594,

178 L. Ed. 2d 434,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8906.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Mahoning County, denied.
No. 10-103.

#### Archstone Multifamily Series I Trust, et al., Petitioners v. Niles Bolton Associates, Inc.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 504,

178 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8651.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 602 F.3d 597.
# DAxSTM RC 

# UA V

advanced


# VT0 L Copyright 2014 Drone America 

### Proprietary and Confidential Drone Arnerica, 3555 Airway Drive suite 310, Reno, 

### NV 8951 1 www.DroneArnerica.corn Tel: 775- 473-9998 ext. 1 Fax: 775-624-34 16 

### Ernail: info@dronearnerica.cornDiameter 48-3 / 8 inches (1228mm) Height 8 inches (200mm) withretractable camera/ LG removed Airframe Construction CFRP (Carbon FiberReinforced Polymer) EmptyWeight 8 . 5lb (3,843 g) Take-offWeigbt 19. 7lb-21.1lb (9,000 g -9,500g) Max. Payload (With Parachute) 4.4lb (2,000g)• Max. Speed 28 mph (45 km/ h)• Climb Rate 15mph (24km/ h)• Flight Height up to 3000 feet (900m) over ground under ideal conditions• Max. Alt. 9,500 feet ASL' FlightTime up to 39min• OperatingTemperature -4 to 104 F (-20 to 40C) Sensors Day / Night Camera, Atmospheric Sensors, Other .. Control RC, tablet-PC (optional), automaticwaypoint flight PowerSource lithium-polymer 10,000 mA- 25,000 mA

• Depending on operatingmode, penuissions, weather and payload

• • Sensors can be customized basedupon customer specific applications.

Inquire for details.



## • Aerial imaging • Mapping at low altitude • Search and Rescue • First Response • Asset Protection • Surveillance • Reconnaissance • Disaster Relief • Anti- poaching Surveillance • Border Patrol for Homeland Security • Universities
- Research • DEA and other Law Enforcement 

## - ---=--- -.. - -.

Simple control provided 

## by intelegent 

## software via ruggedized tablet PC. 

# VT0 L Copyright 2014 Drone Arnerica 

### Propri e tary and Confidential Drone Arnerica, 3555 Airway Drive suite 3 10, Reno, NV 

### 8951 1 vvvvvv.DroneArnerica.corn Tel: 775-473-9998 

### ext. 1 Fax: 775-624-3416 Ernail: info @ dronearnerica.corn
No. 10-213.

#### Arlene D. Rowland, Petitioner v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 962, 131 S. Ct. 473,

178 L. Ed. 2d 289,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7951.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

*290Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 596.
# C_2015429EN.01001502.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка)

(Case T-96/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Маcка - Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application by OHIM of national law))

(2015/C 429/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented initially by B. Térauda, and subsequently by O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rakhat AO (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Rot Front OAO and Rakhat AO.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Rot Front OAO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Rot Front OAO.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---