alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alan Stuart Graf, OSB # 92317 

alangraf@aracnet.com 

208 Pine St 

Floyd, VA 24091 

Telephone: 540-745-2519 

Fax: 931-964-3127 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RONALD PAUL HASE, JR. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

6:15-CV-01314-BR 

ORDER FOR EAJA 

ATTORNEY FEES 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded 

attorney fees in the amount of $7,402.59. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 139 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), payment of this award 

shall be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney: 

Alan Stuart Graf, PC, 208 Pine St., Floyd VA 24091. 

It is so ORDERED 

-JY-, 

Dated this ll__,~dayofOctober, 2016 

Prepared as to form 

Isl Alan Graf 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES-I 

United States Disttlct Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-01314-BR Document 24 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99



                              Cautionary Statements



The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Act") provides a
"safe harbor" for forward-looking statements to encourage companies to provide
prospective information about their business, so long as those statements are
identified as forward-looking and are accompanied by meaningful cautionary
statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those discussed in the statement. ATS Medical, Inc.
desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions with respect to any
forward-looking statements it may make in this filing, other filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and any public oral statements or written
releases. The words or phrases "will likely," "is expected," "will continue,"
"is anticipated," "estimate," "projected," "forecast," or similar expressions
are intended to identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Act. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. The Company
cautions readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking
statements, which speak only as of the date made.

In accordance with the Act, the Company identifies the following important
general factors which if altered from the current status could cause the
Company's actual results to differ from those described in any forward-looking
statements:

*   The continued acceptance of the mechanical heart valve in international
      markets
*   The acceptance by the U.S. FDA of regulatory submissions
*   The continued performance of the mechanical heart valve without
      structural failure
*   The actions of competitors including pricing changes and new product
      introductions
*   The continued performance of independent distributors in selling the
      mechanical heart valve
*   The risk of product returns in connection with distributor terminations
*   The actions of the supplier of pyrolytic carbon components for the
      mechanical heart valve
*   Difficulties in establishing and operating our own pyrolytic carbon
      manufacturing capability
*   The continued contractual relationship with Carbomedics
*   Reimbursement of costs by third-party payors
*   Potential liability claims
*   Protection of our intellectual property rights
*   Volatility of Common Stock

This list is not exhaustive, and the Company may supplement this list in any
future filing or in connection with the making of any specific forward-looking
statement.
#### In re PARISH’S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

May 4, 1896.)

Proceeding for the probate of the will of Ira Parish, deceased.

Tilley Blakely and L. E. Bowe, for appellants.

D. P. Loomis and R. M. Townsend, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of all the evidence leaves us in doubt whether probate of the alleged will should have been granted or refused. The main question, as it seems to us, is whether the decedent had testamentary capacity at the time of the 'execution of the in, strument. The question ■ of undue influence seems to rest largely upon the degree of the decedent’s mental capacity. Apart from the inference that, if the decedent was unable to dictate the terms of the will, 'his son must have done it for him, the evidence of any influence is-very slight. It is not clear to us that the will itself, regard being had to all the circumstances, is in any wise unnatural. It is unnecessary to-recapitulate the evidence, or to restate the well-established rules by which testamentary capacity and the allegations of undue influence may be tested. We think the case is a proper one for a jury. We may add that we think that it was not error to receive the testimony of the attending physician upon the express waiver of the widow and contesting heirs. Code Civ. Proc. § 836; In re Murphy’s Will, 85 Hun, 575, 33 N. Y. Supp. 198. Our order is that the decree of the surrogate’s court of the county of *1147Otsego be reversed, and that the issues of fact be tried by a jury at a circuit in Otsego county, costs of this appeal to be paid out of the estate. The issues to be tried are as follows: Did the deceased, Ira Parish, at the time of the execution of the alleged will, December 17, 1891, have testamentary capacity? Did he execute the same voluntarily ? Was he induced to execute the same by fraud or undue influence?
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sam KraynekChief Financial OfficerAugust 16, 2010
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50596 Conference Calendar

__________________ KENNETH RAY SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHNNY SMITH, Captain, Hughes Unit; DAVID K. VANDIVER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-94-CV-112

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Kenneth Ray Sims's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Sims has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Sims alleged that Captain Smith hit him without provocation, but the defendants presented Sims's disciplinary record in which he pleaded guilty to hitting the officers, and the judgment from his criminal proceeding in which Sims was foundNo. 95-50596 -2-
guilty of two counts of aggravated assault of a correctional officer. Sims has not refuted this evidence which establishes that the use of force was applied "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline," rather than "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Rankin v. Klevenhagen , 5 F.3d 103, 107 (5th Cir. 1993). This court does not have jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion for appointment of counsel because the magistrate judge denied the motion and Sims did not appeal to the district court. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc. , 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). For the first time on appeal, Sims alleges that he was questioned about the excessive force incident in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and that he was denied access to the courts. This court need not address issues not considered by the district court. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Appeal DISMISSED. Motion for injunctive relief DENIED. See Greene v. Fair , 314 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1963).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DALE P. DOLESKI,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 257 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 28th day of October, 2015, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND FROM THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR
THE 3 MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             493,112
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,119,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88,470
<INVENTORY>                                      5,020,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,746,612
<PP&E>                                           4,029,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,317,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,059,427
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           105,603
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,655,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,317,543
<SALES>                                          2,803,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,803,316
<CGS>                                            1,724,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,068,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (91,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (91,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (91,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel
Communications, Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Registration Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 333-53429 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-53429 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-79499 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-88971 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-92895 of
Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-4 of our report dated February 25, 2000
(March 28, 2000 as to paragraphs 21, 23 and 26 of Note 8 and paragraph 3 of Note
18), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nextel Communications, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1999.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 29, 2000
#### European American Bank, Respondent, v Chee-Hwa Tung et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Concur — Fein, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 the Quarterly Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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:       August 15, 2005         By  /s/ Louis Prichard
                                    Louis Prichard
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer

Date:       August 15, 2005         By  /s/ Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Chief Financial Officer



26
Lexlibrary/197885.1
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Scot  Purser
                        Physical Security

                        




                        
                        Security Specialist
                        Phone: (785) 712-3920
                        
                        
                        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
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Roselyn  Johnson
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Custodial Worker
                        Phone: (785) 712-3164
                        
                        
                        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
Case 3:15-cv-00338-SI Document 19 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**782 CA 13-02124**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF OBSESSION BAR AND GRILL, INC. AND JOAN ORTIZ, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF ROCHESTER AND CITY OF ROCHESTER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

ROBERT J. BERGIN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (SARA L. VALENCIA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

SANTIAGO BURGER ANNECHINO LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL A. BURGER OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an amended judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered February 26, 2013. The amended judgment and order, among other things, determined that the decision of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Rochester limiting the weekday closing hours of petitioner Obsession Bar and Grill, Inc. is null and void.
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended judgment and order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Gertrude Morgan et al., Respondents, v Long Beach Entertainment Complex, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Central Funding Co. et al., Appellants.

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Central Funding Co. and Sam Cooper separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated January 30, 1986, which denied their motion to vacate and set aside a foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellants moved to set aside the foreclosure sale conducted in this action upon the ground that they did not receive notice of the sale. Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 31, 1984, a hearing was held to ascertain whether the necessary notice of sale had been served upon the appellants. At the hearing, the plaintiffs’ attorney testified, *inter alia,*that he served both a notice of hearing to compute and a notice of sale upon the attorneys for the appellants, and introduced documentary evidence in support of his claim. While the attorneys for the appellants testified, *inter alia,*that they did not receive these notices, the hearing court properly held that the presumption of proper mailing was not rebutted *(see, Engel v Lichterman,*62 NY2d 943).

We have considered each of the remaining contentions advanced by the appellants on appeal and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
(8 App. Div. 616)

#### CAREY v. KIEFERDORF et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 31, 1896.)

Parties—Right to Intervene—Interest in Controversy.

One who has no interest in or lien on mortgaged premises is not entitled . to he made a defendant in an action to foreclose the mortgage.

■ Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Arthur A. Carey against Cecilia V. Kieferdorf and others to foreclose a mortgage. From an order granting the application of T. B. Egan to be made a party defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BARRETT, RUMSEY, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

H. V. N. Philip, for appellant.

James W. McElhinney, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be reversed, for the reason that the applicant was not a judgment creditor of the *942ow-ner of the premises at.the time of the filing of the notice of lis pendens. He was .consequently neither a necessary nor a proper party, and he had no right to intrude into the action merely to secure notice of the sale of the premises. Having avowedly no defense to the action, as he had no lien upon or interest in the premises at the time of its commencement, his application should "have been denied, with costs.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.
#### RUTHERFORD, Appellant, v. TOWN OF MADRID, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

December 3, 1895.)

Action by Annie Rutherford, administratrix, against town of Madrid.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.