alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

JAN ELLEN ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 6:05-CV-042-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER

 THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

September 1, 2006 (Doc. 21). No written objections have been filed. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and

Recommendation are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court and that this cause

is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to 405 U.S.C.

§ 405(g).

Upon remand and after further consideration of the evidence in the record, the ALJ should

appropriately evaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, determine the limitations imposed by

the combination of Plaintiff’s impairments, and determine Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity

(“RFC”). After determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ will have the opportunity to present a

hypothetical question to the VE which incorporates limitations which are accepted by the ALJ and

which reflect the RFC finding. The ALJ will again need to consider whether Plaintiff’s impairments

 

 Case 6:05-cv-00042-C Document 22 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 96
2

meet or equal in severity any listing in the Listing of Impairments. Finally, if appropriate, the ALJ

may consider the issue of whether Plaintiff can maintain employment.

Dated September 22, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:05-cv-00042-C Document 22 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 97
# C_2017213EN.01001801.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

(Case C-132/17)

(2017/C 213/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peugeot Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does a person who runs a video channel on the YouTube internet service on which internet users can view short advertising videos for new passenger car models operate an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU? (1)

1

---

(1)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).

1

---
***Exhibit 31.1***   ChiefExecutive Officer Certification of the Quarterly Financial Statements

I, **Saturnino S. Fanlo**, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005 of KKR Financial Corp. (the “Corporation”);

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     TheCorporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Corporation and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Corporation, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the Corporation’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Corporation’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The Corporation’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Corporation’sauditors and the audit committee of the Corporation’s board of directors:

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Corporation’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)   Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Corporation’s internal controls over financialreporting.

Date: November 14,2005

|        |       | /s/  SATURNINO S. FANLO                                                         |
|--------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ** ** | **Saturnino  S. Fanlo  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)** |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 5919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis; Panel PAR 22-069 High Impact, 
Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas (RC2).
    Date: March 7, 2025.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, 
Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Tori Stone, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney, National 
Institute of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rm 7013, Bethesda, MD 
20892-5452, (301) 827-0994, [email protected]

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2025.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-01233 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Gary Lee NORMAN, DOC #H20835, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Gary Lee Norman, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Jeremy CARTER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. OUELETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1192

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1633-D

)

JUDGE HENRY LEE ADAMS, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After conducting a de novo review and considering plaintiff’s October 11, 2005 motion for

reconsideration (which the court treats as plaintiff’s objections to the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge), the court finds that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and

conclusions of the court.

Signed October 11, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01633-D Document 7 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
James LEDBETTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Cheryl LEDBETTER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0608

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SONYA L. CHAPMAN, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1997-N

) ECF

STATE OF TEXAS, )

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED April 28, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01997-N Document 9 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Stanley Raphael JEAN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2281

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 3, 2019.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi Ashby, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Peter Lombardo of Law Office of Peter Lombardo, Bradenton, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*527We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. *See, e.g.*, *State v. Borrego*, 970 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); *State v. Devoid*, 706 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires. *See* *State v. Roberts*, 686 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."); *see also* *Bailey v. State*, 994 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure."). We accordingly quash the order to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

Petition granted; order quashed.

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
# C_2019187EN.01000601.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)

(Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)

(2019/C 187/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring courts

Tribunal Supremo and Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant/Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-70/17) and Bankia SA (C-179/17)

Respondent/Defendants: Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed, where the removal of those elements would be tantamount to revising the content of that clause by altering its substance, and, second, as not precluding the national court from compensating for the invalidity of such an unfair term by replacing that term with the new wording of the legislative provision on which it was based, which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, provided that the mortgage loan contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
Case 4:05-cv-00442-A Document 12 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 58
Cleveland DUBOSE, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Melvin PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2764

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 21, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:05-cv-01137-L Document 59 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 788
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01137-L Document 59 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 789
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01137-L Document 59 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 790
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01137-L Document 59 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 791
Edward THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3822

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS**I, Julie A. McGraw, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Interstate Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.May 9, 2006     BY: /s/ Julie A. McGraw Julie A. McGraw    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  
24
Andre MILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2929

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert S.Breuil, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K/A of Aerogen, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances in which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially,affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.;

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)          all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Dated: April 15, 2005 |     |                             |
|----------------------------|----------|----------------------------------|
|                       |     | /s/  ROBERT S. BREUIL  |
| * *                   | * * | Robert S. Breuil                 |
| * *                   | * * | *Chief  Financial Officer*       |
| * *                   | * * | *(Principal  Financial Officer)* |

 

----
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 49 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the HHS Reproductive Healthcare 

Access Task Force. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the HHS 

Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Pro-Abortion Task 

5 Force Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS 

7 FOR HHS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE AC8 CESS TASK FORCE. 

9 No Federal funds may be used for— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 49 IH

1 (1) the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access 

2 Task Force, announced by the Secretary of Health 

3 and Human Services on January 21, 2022; or 

4 (2) any successor or substantially similar task 

5 force. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Cathy A. ADKINS, Appellant, v. Gregory L. ADKINS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-02115-H Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 24