alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul M. Aloi et al., Respondents, v Arlee Ellis et al., Appellants.

[947 NYS2d 258]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William E Eolito, J.), entered March 15, 2011. The order sanctioned counsel for defendants with a fine of $10,000 for frivolous conduct.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the award of sanctions is vacated.

Memorandum: In this personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, defendants appeal from an order that imposed a $10,000 sanction against the law firm of the attorney who represented defendants at a bifurcated trial on liability. According to Supreme Court, defendants’ attorney engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 by failing to concede liability at trial and by pursuing a meritless affirmative defense of comparative negligence. As a preliminary matter, we note that, although defendants’ notice of appeal recites that defendants are appealing from the order, they in fact are not aggrieved by the imposition of sanctions against their attorney’s law firm *(see Moore v Federated Dept. Stores,*
      *1565
      *Inc.,*94 AD3d 638, 639 [2012]). Nevertheless, the notice of appeal may be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the nonparty law firm *(see*CPLR 2001; *Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler, 1*NY3d 605, 606 [2004]; *Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp.,*66 AD3d 841, 842 [2009]). In addition, although no appeal as of right lies from an order such as this, which was entered after a hearing ordered sua sponte by the trial court *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Sholes v Meagher,*100 NY2d 333, 334 [2003]), we nevertheless treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, and we grant the application in the interest of justice *(see Matter of Walker v Bowman,*70 AD3d 1323, 1323-1324 [2010]).

With respect to the merits, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions against the law firm of defendants’ attorney. Although the circumstances of the accident established that defendant Arlee Ellis was the more culpable party, “there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and . . . the fact that [a driver] failed to stop at [a] stop sign is not dispositive of the issue [of the comparative negligence of the other driver]” *(Deshaies v Prudential Rochester Realty,*302 AD2d 999, 1000 [2003]; see *Cox v Nunez,*23 AD3d 427, 427 [2005]). Even where, as here, a driver negligently fails to yield the right-of-way, an oncoming driver may be guilty of some degree of comparative negligence where, e.g., he or she had time to take evasive action but failed to do so *(see e.g. Dorr v Farnham,*57 AD3d 1404, 1405-1406 [2008]; *Cooley v Urban,*1 AD3d 900, 901 [2003]). We thus conclude that the pursuit of the defense by defendants’ attorney was not frivolous, and we note in particular that plaintiffs did not move for summary judgment seeking dismissal of it. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1228(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50263(U).]
### REVISED July 28, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20589

PETROBRAS AMERICA, INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON AND INSURANCE COMPANIES SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B0576/JM12318,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v. VICINAY CADENAS, S.A.,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Opinion on Rehearing Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : The panel hereby clarifies its previous opinion , Petrobras Am., Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas , 815 F.3 d 211 (5th Cir. 2016), as follows. The holding announced in Part I of the panel’s opinion, concluding that the Underwriters did not waive their choice of law argument under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), necessarily depend ed upon the unique statutory scheme created by OCSLA. T hrough OCSLA , Congress legislated the trichotomy of federal law, state law, and residual maritime lawNo. 14

- 20589

2 for disputes arising o n the Outer Continental Shelf. See Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 395 U.S. 352, 355 , 89 S. Ct. 1835 (1969) (“ the purpose of the [OCSLA] was to define a body of law applicable to the seabed, the subsoil and the fixed structures such as those in question here on th e Outer Continental Shelf.” )

. A nd S ection 1333(a) of OCSLA “supersede[s] the normal choice of law rules that the forum would apply.” In re DEEPWATER HORIZON , 745 F.3d 157, 166 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 453 U.S. 473, 48 0

– 81, 101 S. Ct. 2870 (1981)). Consequently, o ur holding does not address waiver of a choice of law argument outside of the OCSLA context and does not disturb authorities holding that, in other contexts, a choice of law argument may be waived

. In re HE CI Exploration Corp. , 862 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir. 1988), the case cited by the petition for rehearing en banc for the proposition that the panel’s opinion creates an intra

- circuit conflict , is emblematic of such non
OCSLA authority

. HECI is distinguishable for a multitude of reasons: because it is based on ERISA law, involved a preemption defense, and is by its own terms confined to its facts. Indeed, the HECI panel emphasized that it “announce[d] no general principle regarding the prope r course of conduct for an appellate court confronted with a situation in which the parties fail to argue the applicable federal law in a federal ly preempted area such as ERISA. ” I d.
at 526 . Furthermore, the HECI holding was “necessarily colored by [the panel’s] position” as a “second

- level appellate court” reviewing a bankruptcy court decision, id. , which is, of course, not the case here. Finally, this appeal arises in admiralty in an interlocutory posture because t he choice of law argument was raised in a motion for leave to amend a complaint, and a claim technically remains pending before the district court. Consequently, t he panel opinion does not opine on different s cenarios , such asNo. 14

- 20589

3 where a party raises a choice of law argument under OCSLA for the f irst time after trial and judgment

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         319,740
<SECURITIES>                                     1,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                  570,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,846
<INVENTORY>                                     55,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,146,215
<PP&E>                                       8,346,456
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,369,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,466,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,896,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,219,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,466,261
<SALES>                                        484,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,636,131
<CGS>                                          271,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,970,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (1,392)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                291,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            291,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   291,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        


</TABLE>
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Ave Reservoir Elevation                    
csv

      Water Temp Deg C                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Ave Reservoir Elevation                    
json

      Water Temp Deg C                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2315

JERRY W. MULLINS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE UNION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, (JHHS); DR. JULES 

ALEXANDER FELEDY, JR., MD; SUBURBAN HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE 

SYSTEMS, INC., (SHHS); BETHESDA EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES LLC; 

DR. MATTHEW LEONARD, MD; MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC.; DR. RIVER 

ELLIOTT, MD; DR. NEIL ZIMMERMAN, MD,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-01113-PX; 1:16-cv-01114-PX)

Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Jerry W. Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Renae Mitchell, WHARTON, LEVIN, 

EHRMANTRAUT & KLEIN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jerry W. Mullins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 

the Defendants in his civil action under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active 

Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Mullins v. The Union Mem’l Hosp., Inc., Nos. 8:16-cv-01113-PX, 1:16-cv-01114-PX (D. 

Md. Apr. 14, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1949 

AN ACT 

To provide for the consideration and submission of site and 

design proposals for the National Liberty Memorial approved for establishment in the District of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1949 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Liberty Me3 morial Clarification Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR COM5 MEMORATIVE WORKS IN ESTABLISHMENT OF 

6 NATIONAL LIBERTY MEMORIAL. 

7 Section 2860(c) of the Military Construction Author8 ization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 

9 112–239; 40 U.S.C. 8903 note) is amended by striking 

10 the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, except 

11 that, under subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 8905, the 

12 Secretary of Agriculture, rather than the Secretary of the 

13 Interior or the Administrator of General Services, shall be 

14 responsible for the consideration of site and design pro15 posals and the submission of such proposals on behalf of 

16 the sponsor to the Commission of Fine Arts and National 

17 Capital Planning Commission.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1949 

AN ACT 

To provide for the consideration and submission of 

District of Columbia. erty Memorial approved for establishment in the site and design proposals for the National Lib-
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51354-51355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19833]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[8982-01-OA]


Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection 
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act,

[[Page 51355]]

notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health 
Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held virtually November 2 
and 3, 2021. The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) on science, regulations and other issues relating to children's 
environmental health.

DATES: November 2, 2021 from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and November 3, 2021 
from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place virtually. If you want to listen 
to the meeting or provide comments, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335f5c465a561d5d5a5052735643521d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9192889498d393949e9cbd988d9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a> for 
further details.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nica Louie, Office of Children's 
Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-7633 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e38f8c968a86cd8d8a8082a3869382cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3afacb6aaa6edadaaa0a283a6b3a2eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the 
public. An agenda will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-protection-advisory-committee-chpac.
    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services 
for individuals with disabilities, please contact Nica Louie at 202-
564-7633 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a16150f131f541413191b3a1f0a1b541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35595a405c501b5b5c5654755045541b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 9, 2021.
Nica Mostaghim,
Environmental Health Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2021-19833 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.4


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Calvin E. Jenniss, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
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
such officer's knowlege:

      (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by Blount
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


Date:  November 19, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness

____________________________________
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
                                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<CAPTION>


                                                         Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,                      September 30,
                                                           -------------                      -------------
                                                       1996              1995             1996             1995
                                                       ----              ----             ----            ----

<S>                                                <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>    
Weighted average common shares outstanding ...       13,502,000          789,000        12,178,000          658,000

Effect of Convertible Preferred Stock
    -- assumed converted at date of issuance .               --        6,599,000                --        6,599,000

Effect of Common and Common
    equivalent Shares issued by the Company
    during the twelve month period immediately
    preceding the Company's initial public
    offering in November 1995, as if they
    were outstanding for all periods presented
    prior to the inital public offering
    (using the treasury stock method) ........               --               --                --          533,000
                                                   ------------      -----------      ------------      -----------

Shares used in computing
    net loss per share .......................       13,502,000        7,388,000        12,178,000        7,790,000

Net loss .....................................     $ (5,349,407)     $(2,430,861)     $(12,021,489)     $(5,432,055)
                                                   ============      ===========      ============      ===========

Net loss per share ...........................     $       (.40)     $      (.33)     $       (.99)     $      (.70)
                                                   ============      ===========      ============      ===========
</TABLE>

                                     - 13 -
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1936 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude certain medical 

sources of evidence in making disability determinations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. REED, Mrs. BLACK, and Mr. MARCHANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude 

certain medical sources of evidence in making disability 

determinations. 

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 ‘‘Improving the Integ5 rity of Disability Evidence Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1936 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MEDICAL SOURCES OF 

2 EVIDENCE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(d)(5) of the Social 

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C)(i) In making any determination with respect to 

7 whether an individual is under a disability or continues 

8 to be under a disability, the Commissioner of Social Secu9 rity may not consider (except for good cause as determined 

10 by the Commissioner) any evidence furnished by— 

11 ‘‘(I) any individual or entity who has been con12 victed of a felony under section 208 or under section 

13 1632; 

14 ‘‘(II) any individual or entity who has been ex15 cluded from participation in any Federal health care 

16 program under section 1128; or 

17 ‘‘(III) any person with respect to whom a civil 

18 money penalty or assessment has been imposed 

19 under section 1129 for the submission of false evi20 dence. 

21 ‘‘(ii) To the extent and at such times as is necessary 

22 for the effective implementation of clause (i) of this sub23 paragraph— 

24 ‘‘(I) the Inspector General of the Social Secu25 rity Administration shall transmit to the CommisVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Apr 29, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1936.IH H1936

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1936 IH

1 sioner information relating to persons described in 

2 subclause (I) or (III) of clause (i); 

3 ‘‘(II) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv4 ices shall transmit to the Commissioner information 

5 relating to persons described in subclause (II) of 

6 clause (i); and’’. 

7 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of 

9 Social Security shall issue regulations to carry out the 

10 amendment made by subsection (a). 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to determinations 

13 of disability made on or after the earlier of— 

14 (1) the effective date of the regulations issued 

15 by the Commissioner under subsection (b); or 

16 (2) one year after the date of the enactment of 

17 this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS