alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20445 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FREDY RUBINA ROJAS, also known as Flaco, also known as Freddy Urb i na Rojas, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-668-5
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointe d t o represent Fredy Rubina Rojas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Rubina Rojas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with c o u n s el’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 6, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20445 Document: 00511877899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2012No. 11-20445

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw i s G RANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-20445 Document: 00511877899 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2012
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Grain Quality and Structure Research: Manhattan, KS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Units
                        Center for Grain and Animal Health Research: Manhattan, KS
                                    Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit
                                    Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit
                                    Stored Product Insect & Engineering Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas Center for Grain and Animal Health Research Grain Quality and Structure Research People & Locations







Jennifer  Blanks
                        Grain Quality and Structure Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (785) 776-2757
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1






               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-56656, No. 33-56544, No. 33-55230, No. 33-84506,
No. 33-84508 and No. 33-95598) of John Alden Financial Corporation of our report
dated March 20, 1998 appearing on page F-2 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Miami, Florida
March 20, 1998
Max Rae

OSB No. 813448

maxrae.atty@comcast.net

P.O. Box 7790

Salem, OR 97303

(503) 363-5424

Fax: (503) 363-5460

Attorney for Plaintiff, Brian Alan Yeske

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRIAN ALAN YESKE, 6:14-cv-01671-KI 

Plaintiff, 

 ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,341.25 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff’s attorney

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The court finds this is a reasonable fee. Previously, this court

awarded fees pursuant to the Equal Access To Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the

amount of $9,000. When issuing the § 406(b) check, the agency is directed to subtract the

amount of the EAJA fee previously received by the attorney and to send to Plaintiff’s attorney,

Max Rae, at the address above, the balance of $5,341.25, minus any user fee. Any amount

withheld after all administrative and court attorneys fees are paid should be released to the

claimant.

DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2019.

__________________________________________

Presented by: United States District Court Judge

s/ Max Rae, 

Max Rae, OSB 813448

(503) 363-5424

Attorney for Plaintiff, Brian Alan Yeske

ORDER - – YESKE v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 6:14-cv01671-KI. Page 1
UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Kevin MAXWELL

Staff Sergeant (E-6)

U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

NMCCA NO. 202100180

Panel 3

ORDER

Granting Appellant’s Motion

to Withdraw Case from

Appellate Review

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Case from Appellate Review, filed on 16 November 2021, we have determined that Appellant’s 

request was properly executed and submitted, and is in substantial compliance with Article 61, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 861, and 

Rule for Courts-Martial 1115.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 16th day of November 2021,

ORDERED:

(1) That Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Appellate Review is GRANTED.

(2) That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for 

appropriate disposition. 

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

45 (LT Dempsey)

46

02
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-6-2006

In re: CitX Corp Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-2760

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In re: CitX Corp Inc " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 802.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/802
Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, *

sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-2760

 

In Re: CITX CORPORATION, INC., 

Debtor

GARY SEITZ, Chapter 7 Trustee

for CitX Corporation, Inc., 

Appellant

v.

DETWEILER, HERSHEY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.;

ROBERT SCHOEN, C.P.A.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-06766)

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

 

Argued April 27, 2006

Before: AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges,

and IRENAS, District Judge *

(Opinion filed: May 26, 2006)

ORDER AMENDING PUBLISHED OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed
2

May 26, 2006, be amended as follows:

On page 10, bottom paragraph, first line, replace “on this claim” with “on

his malpractice claim”.

On page 10, note 7, line three, replace the words “duty element” with

“duty-owed element”.

On page 12, full paragraph, line four, replace “one million dollars” with

“$1,000,000”. 

On page 12, full paragraph, lines five and six, replace the sentence,

“Rather, it lessened CitX’s insolvency.” with “It did the opposite.”

On page 12, full paragraph, line eleven, replace the sentence, 

“This hardly deepened insolvency.” with “Insolvency decreased rather than deepened.”;

and insert the word “later” after the word “Any”.

On page 12, third paragraph, line four, replace the word “backward” with

the words “through hindsight bias”.

On page 13, lines four and five from the top of the page, replace “Put

another way” with “In any event”.

On page 20, second paragraph, line nine, replace the word “holding” with

the words “interpreting Lafferty to hold”.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: June 6, 2006
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Production Systems Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About CPSRU
                        CPSRU Mission StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Production Systems Research People & Locations







Jennifer  Goodlett

(Paige)
                        Crop Production Systems Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician (Plants)
                        Phone: (662) 686-5337
                        
                        
                        Fax: (662) 686-5422(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857

',675,&7 2) 25(*21

%$5%$5$ /(67(5

3ODLQWLII

&96,

YV

25'(5

&$52/<1 &2/9,1

&RPPLVVLRQHU RI 6RFLDO 6HFXULW\

'HIHQGDQW

%DVHG XSRQ WKH VWLSXODWLRQ RI WKH SDUWLHV LW LV KHUHE\ 25'(5(' WKDW DWWRUQH\ IHHV LQ WKH

DPRXQW RI  VKDOO EH DZDUGHG WR 3ODLQWLII SXUVXDQW WR WKH (TXDO $FFHVV WR -XVWLFH $FW 

86&   7KH SDUWLHV DJUHH WKDW DWWRUQH\ IHHV ZLOO EH SDLG WR 3ODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ GHSHQGHQW

XSRQ YHULILFDWLRQ WKDW 3ODLQWLII KDV QR GHEW ZKLFK TXDOLILHV IRU RIIVHW DJDLQVW WKH DZDUGHG IHHV

SXUVXDQW WR WKH 7UHDVXU\ 2IIVHW 3URJUDP DV GLVFXVVHG LQ $VWUXH Y 5DWOLII  6&W  

,I 3ODLQWLII KDV QR VXFK GHEW WKHQ WKH FKHFN VKDOO EH PDGH RXW WR 3ODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ DQG

PDLOHG WR 3ODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\¶V RIILFH DV IROORZV 0HUULOO 6FKQHLGHU 32 %R[  3RUWODQG

25  ,I 3ODLQWLII KDV D GHEW WKHQ WKH FKHFN IRU DQ\ UHPDLQLQJ IXQGV DIWHU RIIVHW RI WKH GHEW

VKDOO EH PDGH WR 3ODLQWLII DQG PDLOHG WR 3ODLQWLII
V DWWRUQH\
V RIILFH DW WKH DGGUHVV VWDWHG DERYH

'$7(' WKLV BBBBB GD\ RI BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

0LFKDHO 6LPRQ

8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW &RXUW -XGJH

UI "VHVTU

T .JDIBFM 4JNPO

Case 3:14-cv-01151-SI Document 24 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Deirdre D. Miller, Respondent, v Brian L. Miller, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 796]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated February 13, 2008, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance, and interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees *(see Gaffney-Romanello v Romanello, 82*AD3d 930 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10


EXHIBIT 10.51




Description of Oral Extension-D. Block Promissory Note




Summary of Terms of the Orally Agreed upon Extension to following Simple Promissory Note (with corresponding exhibit number of original note) under which Registrant is the Borrower. No periodic payments are required and principal and interest are due on the extended due date.







	Original

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Note

	 
	 
	Original

	Oral

	 
	Annual


	Exhibit

	 
	Loan

	Due

	Extension

	 
	%


	Number

	Lender

	Date

	Date

	Date

	Principal

	Rate


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	10.22

	D. Block

	05/27/2008

	08/31/08

	12/31/2008

	$100,000.00

	10%
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT PROPERTIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         865,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 786,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        438,094
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     313,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   786,629
<SALES>                                         84,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Robert Varakian, Chief Executive Officer of Catalina Lighting, Inc., hereby certify to my knowledge, and I, Gary Rodney, Chief Financial Officer of
Catalina Lighting, Inc., hereby certify to my knowledge, that:



| | (a) | The Companys annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-K), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                       
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|                       |  |  |  |                       
|                       |  | 
|/s/    ROBERT VARAKIAN |  |  |  | /s/    GARY RODNEY    
|Robert Varakian        |  |  |  | Gary Rodney           
|                       |  | 
|Date: January 28, 2005 |  |  |  | Date: January 28, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted

pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned, Robert J. Colletti, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 10, 2008



/s/ Robert J. CollettiRobert J. CollettiSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andChief Accounting Officer
#### Rocio Rojas, Respondent-Appellant, v Michael Palese, M.D., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 22]

*558Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2010, which, after a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, denied defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to increase the damages award, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award for future pain and suffering, and the matter remanded for a new trial solely as to damages for future pain and suffering, unless defendants, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry, stipulate to increase the award for future pain and suffering to the amount of $350,000, and to the entry of judgment in accordance therewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s finding that defendant Palese deviated from the standard of care in causing plaintiff’s aorta to tear during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 498-499 [1978]). Defendants’ objections to the qualifications of plaintiffs vascular surgery expert go to the weight and not the admissibility of the expert’s testimony *(Williams v Halpern,*25 AD3d 467, 468 [2006]); the weight to be accorded to conflicting expert testimony is a matter for the jury *(see Torricelli v Pisacano,*9 AD3d 291 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 612 [2004]).

Plaintiffs expert was properly allowed to testify as to future damages since there was no showing of a willful failure to disclose this testimony or of resulting prejudice to defendants *(see*CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; *Colome v Grand Concourse 2075,*302 AD2d 251 [2003]). The videotape and photographs proffered by defendants were properly excluded; the limited probative value of a demonstration of Palese’s performance of the same procedure on another patient was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of showing the jury the complexity of the surgery and the level of skill exhibited by Palese *(see Glusaskas v John E. Hutchinson, III, M.D., P.C.,*148 AD2d 203, 205-206 [1989]).

The jury instructions on liability, which presupposed an injury, were not confusing since defendants only contested plaintiffs claim as to the cause of the injury, i.e., a departure from the standard of care.

As a result of the injury and surgery, plaintiff was left with a large raised scar across her abdomen. Plaintiff testified that she was embarrassed by the scar, it affected the way she dresses and that she does not like her scar to be seen. Furthermore, plaintiff offered medical testimony that her scar could worsen if she were to become pregnant, and may require surgical repair *559in the future. Here, the damages award for future pain and suffering deviated from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances to the extent indicated. Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.