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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACHEL CONDRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00183-VC 

ORDER RE HEARING ON RENEWED 

MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

Assume for argument’s sake that it would be appropriate in this case to certify classes of 

people who were denied claims for out-of-network services if the evidence showed that UHC 

uniformly denied claims for out-of-network services without regard to whether in-network 

services were available (with the potential remedy being that all claims be reprocessed with 

regard to the availability of in-network services). At tomorrow’s hearing, the parties should be 

prepared to address the following, in no particular order: 

• What evidence supports a conclusion that claims for out-of-network services were 

uniformly denied without regard to the availability of in-network services, and where 

is that evidence in the record?

• The plaintiffs make reference to an analysis they conducted of 33,000 claims for outof-network services. Is there evidence in the record that the Court can examine to 

better understand this analysis, and if so where is it? 

• The plaintiffs assert that, of the 33,000 out-of-network claims they analyzed, 12% 

were allowed. If that’s true (and if the plaintiffs’ methodology for identifying these 

claims as claims for lactation services is reliable), then it would seem to undermine 
2

the notion that claims were uniformly denied without regard to the availability of 

lactation services in-network. In other words, if the 12% truly consisted of claims for 

out-of-network lactation services (as opposed to some other type of out-of-network 

service), it seems reasonable to assume that many of them were allowed because innetwork lactation services were unavailable. Have the plaintiffs presented any 

evidence about why this 12% of claims were allowed, and if so where is that in the 

record?

• Can the parties better explain the significance of the gap exception? How does the 

gap exception work? Where is the evidence in the record of how it works? Perhaps 

more importantly, where is the evidence of what participants are told about how it 

works? Is there evidence in the record that would help the Court better understand 

whether the gap exception is a reasonable means of obtaining coverage for out-ofnetwork lactation services in situations where in-network services are unavailable?

• The plaintiffs assert, without explanation, that evidence of the number and percentage 

of claims granted for in-network lactation services is irrelevant. However, this 

information is potentially quite relevant, because it potentially sheds light on how 

widely available in-network lactation services were. In turn, if in-network lactation 

services were widely available, it might support an assumption that the 88% of the 

33,000 claims were denied because of the availability of in-network services (and 

such denials would be consistent with the ACA). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 32 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 291
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 32

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services relating to ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus 
               COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2021

  Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
 Cramer, Mr. Moran, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Lee, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. 
    Hyde-Smith, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Daines, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
 Lankford, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Braun, Mr. Paul, Mr. Risch, Mr. Tuberville, 
   Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Scott of 
   Florida, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Rounds, Mr. 
 Cotton, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hagerty, 
     Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

                             March 1, 2022

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services relating to ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus 
               COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relating 
to ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff 
Vaccination'' (86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (November 5, 2021)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 291

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services relating to ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus 
               COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 1, 2022

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, Crosstex Lig, LLC and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

NO. 2019-CC-0536

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Stay recalled. Writ denied as moot.

HUGHES, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Tom Djokovich, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Hinds, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  January 14, 2004


/s/ Tom Djokovich
-----------------------
Tom Djokovich,
President, Acting CFO, & Director
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Ronald G. Farrell, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the “Company”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.             The Qurterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.             The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 21,  2005 |                    |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                |                    |
|                                |                    |
|                                | /s/Ronald G. Farrell    |   |
|                                | Ronald G. Farrell,      |
|                                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of SFSB, Inc. (the
“Company”) each certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.






/s/
      Philip E. Logan





Philip
      E.
      Logan


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


May
      14,
      2008








/s/
      Sophie T. Wittelsberger


Sophie
      T.
      Wittelsberger


Vice-President
      and Chief Financial Officer


May
      14,
      2008






This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document,
      and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason
      other
      than as specifically required by law.






-
        27 -
# L_2017230EN.01002801.xml

| 6.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/28

---

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2017/1525

of 4 September 2017

amending Decision 2014/256/EU in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to converted paper products

(notified under document C(2017) 5948)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(3)(c) thereof,

After consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2014/256/EU (2) expires on 2 May 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2014/256/EU (2) expires on 2 May 2017.

| (2) | An assessment has been carried out confirming the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by Decision 2014/256/EU. Decision 2014/256/EU should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An assessment has been carried out confirming the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by Decision 2014/256/EU. Decision 2014/256/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 4 of Decision 2014/256/EU is replaced by the following:

‘Article 4

The ecological criteria for the product group “converted paper products” and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 December 2020.’

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 September 2017.

For the Commission

Karmenu VELLA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (OJ L 135, 8.5.2014, p. 24)

2

---
Maria ANGULO, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
December 12 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

YUSUF M. SULTAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00751

- CV V.

CA NEW PLAN FIXED RA TE PARTNERS HIP, L.P. , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on May 1, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSE D

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Yusuf M. Sultan. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 14 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                        Calendar No. 48
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 14

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
    Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2021

 Mr. Heinrich (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
Whitehouse, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Smith, Ms. Klobuchar, 
 Mr. Schumer, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. 
Casey, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reed, 
Mr. Wyden, Mr. Peters, and Ms. Collins) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

                             April 26, 2021

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
    Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review'' (85 Fed. Reg. 57018 
(September 14, 2020)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                        Calendar No. 48

117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
    Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 26, 2021

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 22

- 00225

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th Dis trict Court

Hood County, Texas

Trial Court No. D2019135

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### A NNA 

### S POHN 

### W ELCH 

### M ARSH AND 

### A NNA 

### M ARSH 

### 205 S

- C ORP 

### L IVING



### T RUST



### , Appellants

V



### .

C ALIFORNIA 

### N OEL 

### M ARSH 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered the “ Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” We grant the

mot ion and dism iss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant s must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : September 29, 2022
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK   Document 1084-4   Filed 01/03/19   Page 1 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK   Document 1084-4   Filed 01/03/19   Page 2 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK   Document 1084-4   Filed 01/03/19   Page 3 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK   Document 1084-4   Filed 01/03/19   Page 4 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK   Document 1084-4   Filed 01/03/19   Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Victory Eagle Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ludvik
Rolin, the President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Reporting 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 to my
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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:
December 14, 2008





Ludvik
Rolin





/s/ Ludvik
Rolin


(Principal
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and


Principal
Accounting Officer)
William PIERRE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report of Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal 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, to my
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.




Date:
November 12, 2010





/s/
      Steven SantoName:
                Steven
      SantoTitle:
                Chief
      Executive Officer
Gerardo MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Ruebin A. MARTIN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

David A. Papa of Papa & Gipe, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant.

Anthony J. Russo and Mihaela Cabulea of Butler, Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa; and Mark S. Ramey of Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     I, Kristina Cashman, Chief Financial Officer of P.F. Chang's China Bistro,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this
     certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with
     the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Registrant.



Dated: February 12, 2003                      /s/ Kristina Cashman
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Kristina Cashman
                                              Chief Financial Officer