alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles C. Lucas, Petitioner, v Antonia C. Novello, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 299]

Crew III, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c [5]) to review a determination of the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct which suspended petitioner’s license to practice medicine in New York.

Following a disciplinary proceeding in 1996, petitioner’s license to practice medicine was suspended for three years, with said suspension stayed, and petitioner was placed on probation. Pursuant to the terms of such probation, petitioner was to remain drug free and to notify the Office of Professional Medical Conduct of any disciplinary action taken against him in any other jurisdiction. In February 2001, petitioner was charged with violating the terms of his probation based upon a positive urine test and petitioner’s failure to indicate on his 1999 registration renewal that he had been disciplined in North Carolina in 1998. Following a hearing, petitioner was found guilty, and a Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct suspended petitioner’s license for an additional five years, stayed that suspension and placed him on probation. Upon administrative appeal, the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter ARB) rejected petitioner’s plea for a reduction in the penalty, suspended petitioner’s license for five years, stayed only 54 months of such suspension and placed petitioner on probation. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge the ARB’s determination.

The sole argument advanced by petitioner on review is that the penalty imposed is unduly harsh. We cannot agree. Based upon our review of the record as a whole, and taking into consideration petitioner’s prior disciplinary record, we cannot say that the penalty imposed by the ARB is so disproportionate to the underlying offense as to shock this Court’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of White v New York State Bd. for Profes*
      *736
      *sional Med. Conduct,*277 AD2d 608, 611, *lv denied*96 NY2d 716). To the extent that petitioner argues that his conduct “pales in comparison” to the misconduct at issue in the various disciplinary proceedings cited in his brief and, hence, should be subject to a lesser penalty, we need note only that the “penalties imposed in other cases are irrelevant because each case must be judged on its own peculiar facts and circumstances” *(Matter of Bezar v DeBuono,*240 AD2d 978, 979).

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 994 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 14, 2008.
Whereas Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia affects men, women, and children of all ages;
Whereas this disorder is very distressing to those who have it, causing great 
        discomfort and severe emotional stress;
Whereas children with Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia are unable to participate in 
        many normal childhood activities including most sports and are often 
        subject to social discomfort because of their disorder;
Whereas Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia includes a wide range of symptoms including 
        life-threatening, uncontrollable bleeding and severe bruising;
Whereas Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia is frequently misdiagnosed or undiagnosed by 
        medical professionals;
Whereas currently there is no cure for Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia;
Whereas it is essential to educate the public on the symptoms, treatments, and 
        constant efforts to cure Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia to insure early 
        diagnosis and treatment of the condition;
Whereas Helen P. Smith established the Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Research 
        Foundation in Augusta, Georgia, in 2001;
Whereas Helen P. Smith and the Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Research Foundation 
        have worked tirelessly to promote awareness of Glanzmann's 
        Thrombasthenia and help fund research on the disorder; and
Whereas Congress should determine an appropriate day to designate as National 
        Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the designation of a 
National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 12
<TABLE>
                       ENRON CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
                               FIXED CHARGES
                               (In Millions)
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                     Six Months
                                       Ended             Year Ended December 31,
                                      6/30/97      1996     1995    1994    1993   1992

<S>                                    <C>       <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>    <C>
Earnings available for fixed charges
 Net income (loss)                     $(198)    $  584   $  520   $  453   $333   $329
 Less:
   Undistributed earnings and
    losses of less than 50% owned
    affiliates                           (11)       (39)     (14)      (9)   (20)   (33)
   Capitalized interest of
    nonregulated companies                (7)       (10)      (8)      (9)   (26)   (66)
 Add:
   Fixed charges (a)                     251        454      436      487    471    452
   Minority interests                     36         75       27       30     28     18
   Income tax expense (benefit)         (125)       297      310      190    148     88
     Total                             $ (54)    $1,361   $1,271   $1,142   $934   $788

Fixed Charges
 Interest expense (a)                  $ 226     $  404   $  386   $  445   $436   $430
 Rental expense representative of
  interest factor                         25         50       50       42     35     22
     Total                             $ 251     $  454   $  436   $  487   $471   $452

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       (b)       3.00     2.92     2.34   1.98   1.74 

<FN>
(a)  Amounts exclude costs incurred on sales of accounts receivables.
(b)  For the six months ended June 30, 1997, earnings were inadequate to
     cover fixed charges by $305 million.
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   227316
<ALLOWANCES>                                     23854
<INVENTORY>                                     626786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                873542
<PP&E>                                         2945692
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2253150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1592302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2229703
<BONDS>                                          88002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4060163
<OTHER-SE>                                   (4785566)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1592302
<SALES>                                        2195371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2195371
<CGS>                                           833414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   833414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1547882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 16600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              151300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2449
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2449
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                1243405
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1245854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-61013 Summary Calendar

MARCOS WASHINGTON CUBAS; MARIA DE CARMEN MONSALVE DE CUBAS; MARIE ELLA CUBAS, Petitioners,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29 387 824 BIA No. A39 387 831 BIA No. A29 387 833

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcos Washington Cubas, his wife, Maria De Carmen Monsalve De Cubas, and their daughter, Marie Ella Cubas, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) opinion that affirmed the decision of the immigration judge denying Cubas asylum and withholding of removal. The Cubases argues that the immigration judge’s finding that Cubas failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D January 4, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-61013 -2- fear of future persecution is not supported by substantial evidence in light of his testimony and the evidence he submitted at the immigration hearing. We review the immigration judge’s decision because the BIA summarily affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, thereby making it the final agency decision.
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). We will uphold the immigration judge’s determination that Cuba is not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To reverse the immigration judge’s determination that Cubas is not eligible for asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Cubas has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40152

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEXIS ACOSTA-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1264-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alexis AcostaGuzman has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Acosta-Guzman has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Acosta-Guzman’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40152 Document: 00513753587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2016
No. 16-40152

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40152 Document: 00513753587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2016
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard E. Gathright                                          |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Richard      E. Gathright                                         |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)                                |
| November      15, 2010                                            |

| /s/ Michael S. Shore                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael      S. Shore                                             |
| Chief      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Senior Vice President |
| (Principal      Financial Officer)                                |
| November      15, 2010                                            |

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Kathleen Horan, Appellant. Augie Moschitto Trim & Jewelry Corporation, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 301]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 27, 2001, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an administrative assistant after her employer observed her sleeping at her desk. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Claimant was also charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits on the ground that she made a willful false statement to obtain benefits when she stated on her application that she was unemployed due to “lack of work,” although it is uncontested that her employment ended when she was fired for sleeping on the job.

It has repeatedly been held that sleeping on the job may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, *Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor],*253 AD2d 931; *Matter of Gonzalez [Sweeney],*247 AD2d 748; *Matter of Dimassimo [Eastman Kodak*Co.—*Sweeney],*231 AD2d 777). Claimant testified that she was not asleep on her last day of work but was resting her eyes after taking medication for a migraine headache. The employer testified that he had found claimant sound asleep at her desk and that he and other employees had observed claimant sleeping on several earlier occasions. The conflict in the parties’ testimony presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the *735Board *(see, Matter of De Maria [Commissioner of Labor],*276 AD2d 1010; *Matter of Gonzalez [Sweeney], supra*at 748). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct *(see, Matter of De Maria [Commissioner of Labor], supra*at 1011). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended June 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, John A. Martin, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Corporation as of June 30, 2009.

 
| Dated:   August 7, 2009 | /s/  J. Alex Martin             |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                              | J. Alex Martin,  President and Chief |
|                              | Executive Officer                    |
|                              | (Principal Executive  Officer)       |

 

“This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCorporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.”

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Uited States of America

v. 08-cr-94-01-SM

Peter Mitrano

ORDER

Re: Document No. 55 , Motion for Reconsideration

Ruling: 

Granted. The defendant continues to provide insufficient support

for his request for travel and living expenses. Nevertheless, in

an effort to insure his attendance at trial, I will approve

travel expenses to allow the defendant to travel to this district

for trial. The assigned trial judge will decide whether further

evidence of the defendant's indigency will be required before

additional expenses are approved. 

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: January 30, 2009

cc: Counsel of record

Case 1:08-cr-00094-PB Document 58 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 33 filed 09/29/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW

AMANDA SULLIVAN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELTA ENTERPRISE, CORP.,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 42) is

DENIED for the following reasons. I have reviewed Plaintiff’s interrogatories 3, 6, 18

and 24 and Request for Production Nos. 7 and 21 and the answers and responses to

such interrogatories and requests for production by Defendant. I have also reviewed

Defendant’s letter date June 8, 2012, to Plaintiff’s counsel [exhibit B attached to

Response docket no. 49]. After reviewing the same, I find that Defendant has fully

answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories 4, 6, 18 and 24 and fully responded to Plaintiff’s

Request for Production Nos. 7 and 21. As to that portion of Plaintiff’s interrogatory 3

which relates to photographs taken by Defendant’s consulting expert, I find such

photographs by the consulting expert are protected by the work product doctrine. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D). 

It is FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference with Court

and Request for Expedited Ruling (docket nos. 50, 51, and 52) is DENIED. This court

has now ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 42) and there is no need for

an expedited hearing. Moreover, as to the pending motion captioned “Delta Enterprise,

Corp.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Plaintiff’s Third Amended Notices of Videotaped

Depositions (docket no. 47),” such motion was filed with the court on July 6, 2012, and it

not yet ripe for ruling. Furthermore, the discovery cut-off date in this case is November

19, 2012, and the parties have several months before the close of discovery. 

Date: July 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 55 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      23.01


**LAROCHE
        PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, LTD.**


**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM**
 **ENGINEERS
        AND GEOLOGISTS**


As
        independent oil and gas consultants, LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd.
        hereby
        consents to the incorporation by reference to its name and its reports, relating
        to the proved oil and gas reserves of Westside Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
        as of June 30,
        2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, in the Company's Quarterly
        Report
        on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, and the incorporation
        by
        reference thereof into the previously filed Registration Statement on Form
        S-8
        (SEC file no. 333-124890) filed on May 13, 2005 and the previously filed
        Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC file no. 333-114686) filed on April
        21,
        2004.





LaRoche
                Petroleum Consultants, Inc.By:
            /s/
                William M. KazmannName:
            William
                M. KazmannTitle
                :
            Partner


Dallas,
        TX


August
        13,2007
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending April 16, 2022

----

Enforcement            Centennial Bank, Conway, Arkansas -- consent order of prohibition against Jennifer Woods, a former institution-affiliated party.            -Announced, April 12, 2022                        The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., New York, New York -- consent order of prohibition against Joseph Jiampietro, a former institution-affiliated party.            -Approved, March 31, 2022            (A/C)          
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received: