alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SYNAPTX WORLDWIDE, INC. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                             122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      920
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,136
<PP&E>                                             334
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (117)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,091
<SALES>                                          1,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,478
<CGS>                                            1,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (392)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (392)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 99-754

DAVID C. MORAN, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

The appellant appeals a January 29, 1999, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA)

that denied a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The appellant

argues in his brief, inter alia, that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) is invalid on the ground that it imposes on

noncombat veterans seeking service connection for PTSD an evidentiary burden that is greater than

that required for other disabilities. Specifically, a noncombat veteran seeking service connection for

PTSD must provide "credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred."

38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2001); see Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 283, 288-89 (1994). Whereas an

appellant seeking service connection for a disability other than PTSD may show in-service

incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury by lay evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.303(a) (2001); see also Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 147, 148 (1992) (per curiam order);

Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 24, 25-26 (1991).

In view of the appellant's argument, the Court requires further briefing on the following

questions: Does the provision of § 3.304(f) quoted above provide, in essence, that uncorroborated

lay evidence as to a nonmedical question cannot meet the benefit-of-the-doubt threshold of 38 U.S.C.

§ 5107(b)? If so, is the Secretary authorized under 38 U.S.C. § 501(a)(1) to promulgate such a

regulation?

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the appellant file and serve

on the Secretary a supplemental memorandum addressing the questions above. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the appellant's service, the Secretary file and

serve on the appellant a supplemental memorandum responding to the appellant's memorandum and

addressing the questions above. It is further
2

ORDERED that, not later than 14 days after the Secretary's service, the appellant may file

and serve a reply. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Clerk will,

after supplemental briefing is complete, schedule oral argument as the business ofthe Court permits.

DATED: August 15, 2002 PER CURIAM.
#### Anthony Leon HOOVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert C. LEWIS, Director of Prisons; Michael J. Lamm, Superintendent; State of North Carolina Administration; Allen W. Keller, Jr., Secretary of State, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-7376.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: May 20, 2011.

Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Hoover seeks to appeal an unspecified order allegedly entered on September 23, 2010. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 *354U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hoover seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and his notice of appeal was premature as to the final order in his proceeding. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hoover’s motions to compel, for a temporary restraining order, and for a Federal Marshal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Leland Avery, Appellant, v Cazenovia Central School et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs. Since the decision of the Board was interlocutory and decided neither all of the substantive issues nor any threshold legal issues, it is not appealable at this stage of the proceeding. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) 

 

I, Steven B. Ratoff, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NovaDel Pharma Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 

 

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

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [intentionally omitted] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

| Date:  August 14, 2007 | By:    | /S/ STEVEN B. RATOFF                          |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Steven B. Ratoff                              |
|                   |   | Interim President and Chief Executive Officer |
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2873

___________ Santresa Scoggins, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Bank of America, N.A., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 1, 2012 Filed: March 6, 2012

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Santresa Scoggins appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against her fo rmer employer, Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) . Upon careful de novo review, seeTorgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We agree with the district court that Bank of America proffered a legitimat e, non-discriminatory reason for Scoggins’s termination, and that Scoggins failed to es tablish a genuine issue of material fact

1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.under any theory of liability. SeeTwymon v. Wells Fargo & Co. , 462 F.3d 925, 934- 35 (8th Cir. 2006) (facially race-neutral st atements, without more, do not demonstrate racial animus on part of speaker; in ab sence of direct evidence court applies burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973); once plaintiff establishes prim a facie case and employer articulates legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for te rmination, employee must demonstrate by preponderance of evidence thatstated reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination; this court has consistently held that violating company policy is legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale for terminating employee); see also McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis. , 559 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir. 2009) (claims under Title VII and Arkansas Civil Rights Act are governed by same standards); cf. Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC , 656 F.3d 782, 798 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that Title VII does not set forth general civility code).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
---

---

Exhibit 8.1

# List of Subsidiaries

|Company                                  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|---------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Ceragon Networks (Aus) Pty Ltd           | Australia                    
|Ceragon Networks do Brasil Limitada      | Brazil                       
|Ceragon Networks (UK) Limited            | England                      
|Ceragon Networks SARL                    | France                       
|Ceragon Networks (HK) Limited            | Hong Kong                    
|Ceragon Networks (India) Private Limited | India                        
|Ceragon Networks, S.A. de C.V.           | Mexico                       
|Ceragon Networks, Inc.                   | New Jersey                   
|Ceragon Networks (Philippines), Inc.     | Philippines                  



---

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[66 FR 19591, April 16, 2001]


Sunshine Act Meeting; Federal Register Citation of Previous 
Announcement

STATUS: Closed meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: April 11, 2001.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Cancellation of Meeting.
    The closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 18, 2001 at 11:00 
a.m. has been canceled.

    Dated: April 18, 2001.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10091 Filed 4-19-01; 12:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### Edwin L. Bristol, Appellant, v Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Respondent.

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for a declaratory judgment, it was error for the court to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without declaring the rights of the parties *(Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334, *cert denied*371 US 901). We therefore modify the order to make an appropriate declaration. Plaintiff is not a "retired employee” of defendant and thus is not entitled to travel pass benefits. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Grow, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, filed on the
date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Richard D. KincaidRichard D. KincaidPresident and Chief Executive Officer
of Equity Office Properties Trust,
the general partner of EOP Operating Limited
Partnership  /s/ Marsha C. WilliamsMarsha C. WilliamsExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Equity Office Properties Trust,
the general partner of EOP Operating Limited
Partnership
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

CEREMONIAL MISC. NO. 04-21 

 

IN RE: THE MATTER OF THE RETIREMENT OF JOAN MORIARTY 

Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge, and PIETSCH, GREENBERG, ALLEN, 

MEREDITH, TOTH, FALVEY, LAURER, and JAQUITH, Judges, and 

NEBEKER, KRAMER, HOLDAWAY, GREENE, KASOLD, 

HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Senior Judges. 

O R D E R 

Before the Court is the matter of the retirement of Joan Moriarty, a career public servant who dedicated 

nearly 40 years of service to the nation, almost all of them litigating cases before the United States Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Ms. 

Moriarty's tenure at VA predates the creation of the Court, and her ongoing efforts to develop and evolve 

the practice of veterans law merit special recognition. 

Ms. Moriarty graduated from Mount Holyoke College and earned a law degree from Western New England 

University School of Law. A summer internship with the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 

Washington, D.C., convinced her that she wanted to live in the nation's capital and continue working for 

the government. She accepted a position at the VA Office of the General Counsel (OGC), serendipitously 

under General Counsel Donald Ivers, a future Judge on the Court. Thus began Ms. Moriarty's VA OGC 

career in 1985. 

Early on, Ms. Moriarty's involvement in litigation would spur an interest in joining the OGC group 

representing the department before the newly formed Court. She served under 11 VA Secretaries (not 

counting several acting Secretaries) and argued and filed briefs in countless significant cases including the 

seminal case of Colvin v. Derwinski. These experiences and her professionalism resulted in her nomination 

by OGC and appointment by the Court to serve on its Rules Advisory Committee (RAC). Ms. Moriarty 

served as a RAC member from 1997 until 2004, when the Court appointed her as chair. She continued in 

that capacity until 2011, in all serving the RAC and the Court for more than 13 years. Courts are clearly 

rules-based organizations and Ms. Moriarty's service on the RAC coincided with critical developments in 

the Court's rules that included the transition from paper-based pleadings to electronic filing. At the same 

time, Ms. Moriarty was also expanding her influence on litigation generally as she progressed from a staff 

attorney, then senior appellate attorney, then Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and finally Deputy Chief 

Counsel. 

Ms. Moriarty's legacy in veterans law and impact on the Court are truly inspiring and her contributions and 

achievements most worthy of special recognition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that Joan Moriarty take with her our gratitude for the many years of outstanding public service 

she has rendered to this Court and the nation, our admiration for her many accomplishments, the warmth of 

our continued friendship, and our very best wishes. 

DATED: September 1, 2021 PER CURIAM.
#### McKEE et al. v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al.

(No. 2.)

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Thomas J. McKee and others, as executors, against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Modified.

Argued before O’BRIEN, FOLLETT, and PARKER, JJ.

A. O. Townsend, for appellants.

Wm. R. Page, for respondents.

*459PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the opinion herewith handed down in the case of McKee v. Railroad Co. (action No. 1) 29 N. Y. Snpp. 457, the judgment herein should be modified by striking out the alternative as to the payment of the money, and receiving the release or conveyance, and by directing that an injunction absolute issue unless, within six months after the entry of the order upon this appeal, the defendants shall have condemned such easements, with costs to appellants.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 100
          - [CGD-00-119]
          - RIN 2115-AE46

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of implementation.

# SUMMARY:

This notice puts into effect the permanent regulations for the annual Harvard-Yale Regatta, a rowing competition held on the Thames River in New London, CT. The regulation is necessary to control vessel traffic within the immediate vicinity of the event due to the confined nature of the waterway and anticipated congesttion at the time of the event, thus providing for the safety of life and property on the affected navigable waters.

# DATE:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.101 are effective on June 10, 2000, from 2:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. If the regatta is cancelled due to weather, this section will be in effect on the following day, Sunday June 11, 2000, from 2:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petty Officer William M. Anderson, Office of Search and Rescue, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8460.

      ( print page 21142)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This notice implements the permanent special local regulation governing the 2000 Harvard-Yale Regatta. A portion of the Thames River in New London, Connecticut will be closed during the effective period to all vessel traffic except participants, official regatta vessels, and patrol craft. The regulated area  is that area of the river between the Penn Central drawbridge and Bartlett's Cove. Additional public notification will be made via the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety broadcasts. The full text of this regulation is found in 33 CFR 100.101.

Dated: March 28, 2000.

G.N. Naccara,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00-9935  Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-M