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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           5,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  313,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    219,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,158
<PP&E>                                         654,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                 465,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 959,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          698,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        73,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     28,266
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   959,539
<SALES>                                      3,022,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,022,209
<CGS>                                        2,499,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,499,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               658,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (174,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (174,898)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (174,898)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Miguel Robayo, Appellant, v Sami K. Aghaabdul, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 317]—

*893In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered January 3, 2013, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that while in the right lane of the George Washington Bridge, his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. Prior to the completion of discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied his motion.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione,*101 AD3d 706 [2012]; *Zdenek v Safety Consultants, Inc.,*63 AD3d 918 [2009]). “A claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” *(Jumandeo v Franks,*56 AD3d 614, 615 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the defendant’s vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear as the plaintiffs vehicle was slowing down for traffic in front of it *(see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione,*101 AD3d at 706). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “[Vjehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” *(Shamah v Richmond County Ambulance Serv.,*279 AD2d 564, 565 [2001]). In his affidavit, the defendant acknowledged that he was traveling slowly due to the volume of traffic on the bridge. Because the lane in which both vehicles were traveling was closed ahead of them, the plaintiffs vehicle began to move into the adjacent lane, and then stopped suddenly. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s conclusory assertion that the plaintiffs vehicle stopped suddenly was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff negligently contributed to the happening of the accident, as the defendant *894should have anticipated that the plaintiff might have to make a sudden stop *(see Sayyed v Murray,*109 AD3d 464 [2013]; *Staton v Ilic,*69 AD3d 606, 607 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Angiolillo, J.E, Chambers, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

| |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  | Speech by the Companys chairman, president
and Chief executive officer at the
Companys annual meeting of shareholders on
April 21, 2004 disclosing information
relating to the financial condition and
results of operations for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2004

It is now my pleasure to report on earnings for the first quarter of 2004 ....

Im pleased to announce that Imperials net earnings for the first quarter of
this year were $509 million, or $1.40 a share  only slightly below last years
record of $538 million in the first quarter.

Favourable market conditions that prevailed through most of 2003, including
high international prices for crude oil and natural gas and strong
manufacturing margins for petroleum and petrochemicals, continued through the
first quarter. However, these positive factors were more than offset by the
effects of a higher Canadian dollar. Because petroleum markets are based on
U.S. dollar prices, a rising Canadian dollar results in lower revenues for
Canadian companies.

In spite of the negative revenue impacts of a higher Canadian dollar, earnings
for the first quarter were close to those of last year due to stronger
operating performance. We achieved real improvement in the controllable parts
of the business, such as production volumes, operating reliability and cost
management, and made solid progress on major projects to provide future growth.
#### In the Matter of Petros Babi, Also Known as Petros Bedi, Appellant, v Jonathan David, as Records Access Appeals Officer of the New York City Police Department, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 902]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered August 23, 2005, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), granted respondent Police Department’s Records Access Appeals Officer’s cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proceeding, which was commenced while petitioner’s *267administrative appeal was still pending three months after he had filed it, and dismissed by the application court on the ground “there has been no final agency determination,” was rendered moot by respondent’s issuance of a determination granting petitioner’s FOIL requests to the extent of remanding the matter for a further document search by the FOIL Unit *(cf. Matter of Taylor v New York City Police Dept. FOIL Unit,*25 AD3d 347 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 714 [2006] [proceeding rendered moot by respondents’ production of responsive records as part of their motion to dismiss]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Friedman and McGuire, JJ.
#### HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANQUIL PROSPECTS, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2007-1358.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 2008.

William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, of Westfield, New Jersey, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Paul H. Kochanski, Roy H. Wepner, and Samantha M. Kameros.

George C. Summerfield, Stedheim & Grear, Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph A. Grear, Rolf O. Stedheim, Keith A. Vogt, and Steven R. Pedersen.

Before RADER, PROST and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

*298ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
----

EXHIBIT 15.1

 

April 26, 2002

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) related to the resale of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid Yield Option Notes, and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such Registration Statements of our report dated April 8, 2002 (except for Note 12, as to which the date is April 24, 2002), relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2002.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

Very truly yours,

 /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 244 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 244

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the exclusion 
 of Medicare coverage for hearing aids and examinations therefor, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2023

 Mrs. Dingell (for herself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Kaptur, 
 Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Matsui, and Ms. Schakowsky) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the exclusion 
 of Medicare coverage for hearing aids and examinations therefor, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Hearing Aid Coverage Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING MEDICARE EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE OF HEARING AIDS AND 
              EXAMINATIONS THEREFOR.

    (a) In General.--Section 1862(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395y(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``hearing aids or 
examinations therefor,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2024.

SEC. 3. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON HEARING AID PROGRAMS.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study of programs, including Federal programs and health 
insurance coverage, that provide assistance for hearing aids and 
related examinations for individuals with hearing loss. Such study 
shall include an examination of the number of individuals in the United 
States with hearing loss who need hearing aids, their coverage under 
such programs, and the effectiveness of such programs in meeting such 
need. Such study may also address programs that are designed to reduce 
or mitigate the incidence of hearing loss.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date specified in 
section 2(b), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress 
on the study conducted under subsection (a). Such report shall include 
such recommendations on changes in such programs, including the 
establishment of new programs, as would meet the needs of individuals 
with hearing loss.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15.1


August 11, 1998


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock 
Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock 
Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 
1984 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the shares issuable to certain 
convertible subordinated debenture holders, the Genentech, Inc. Tax 
Reduction Investment Plan and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, 
contained in such Registration Statements of our report dated July 10, 1998 
relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial 
statements of Genentech, Inc. which are included in its Form 10-Q for the 
quarter and six-months ended June 30, 1998.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a 
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants 
within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                             Very truly yours,




                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP
1

 Because summonses for jurors must be sent out seven to eight weeks in advance of jury

selection, the court cannot wait to see how many of the co-defendants in this case may opt to

enter guilty pleas. Today is the midway point between seven to eight weeks in advance of jury

selection, and the court must decide the motion on the information extant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 06-00176-07-CG

)

 KENNETH TAIWAN MOORE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for a trial in the Northern Division 

of the Southern District of Alabama, at Selma, with a jury drawn from the qualified jury wheel of

the Northern Division. As grounds, the defendant asserts that the defendant is a resident of that

division, the offense alleged took place in that division, and the co-defendants are believed to be

residents of that division.

There is no right to have a criminal trial in a particular division of a district, or to have

one’s jury selected from jurors from a particular division. However, upon timely application the

district court may, in its discretion, grant such a request. See United States v. Burns, 662 F.2d

1378, 1382 (11th Cir. 1981) and FED.R.CRIM.P. 18. The application was undoubtedly timely.

However there are logistical problems which this case presents that a trial in the Northern

Division of the District cannot accommodate. There are twelve defendants named in the

indictment, who, presumably, will be tried together. So far, no co-defendant has filed a notice of

intent to plead guilty, and the court therefore assumes that this will be a multi-defendant trial.1

 

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 147 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 2
2

All of the defendants are in custody, and either are, or will be, set for trial during the October

2006 Criminal Jury Term. The Federal Courthouse in Selma is a one-courtroom building, with

either one or two holding cells in the Marshal’s one-room office. It would be impossible to

accommodate the security concerns of a trial involving more than one or two in-custody

defendants, and possibly several in-custody witnesses, with the physical limitations of the

courthouse in Selma. This case has 12 in-custody defendants. The case will be tried in Mobile,

and the defendant’s motion for a Northern Division trial is DENIED.

Although this District’s Jury Plan does not allow for a Northern Division jury to be

selected on a case tried in the Southern Division of the District, it does allow for a petit jury to be

drawn from the district at large. This is an appropriate case in which to apply that provision of

the Jury Plan, and the court therefore ORDERS that the petit jury in this case be drawn from the

district at large, according to the procedure specified in the Jury Plan.

DONE and ORDERED this 15TH day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 147 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2
##### 



(NEWS RELEASE - SUN LIFE FINANCIAL LOGO) Sun Life Financial increases quarterly dividend
by 9 per cent to 24 cents per share Toronto  January 27, 2005 The Board of Directors of Sun Life Financial Inc. (NYSE, TSX:
SLF) today announced a quarterly shareholder dividend of 24 cents per common share, payable March
31, 2005, to shareholders of record at the close of business on February 23, 2005. This represents
an increase of 9% from the 22 cents a share paid in the previous quarter. Donald A. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer, said, Reflecting our continued positive financial
performance and confidence in the outlook for the current year and beyond, the Board of Directors
is increasing the quarterly common share dividend by 9% to 24 cents per share. This latest increase
follows dividend increases totaling 29% in 2004. Sun Life Financial is a leading international financial services organization providing a diverse
range of wealth accumulation and protection products and services to individuals and corporate
customers. Tracing its roots back to 1865, Sun Life Financial and its partners today have
operations in key markets worldwide, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Hong
Kong, the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, India, China and Bermuda. As of December 31, 2004, the Sun
Life Financial group of companies had total assets under management of CDN$360 billion. Sun Life Financial Inc. trades on the Toronto (TSX), New York (NYSE) and Philippine (PSE) stock
exchanges under ticker symbol SLF. Note to Editors: All figures in Canadian dollars. - 30 -  Media Relations Contact:
Susan Jantzi
Manager, Media Relations
Tel:   519-888-3160
susan.jantzi@sunlife.com
    
    Investor Relations Contact:
Tom Reid
Vice-President, Public & Investor Relations
Tel:   416-204-8163
investor.relations@sunlife.com
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-144338 onForm S-8 of our report dated September 10, 2009 (November 5, 2009 as to theeffects of the restatement discussed in Note 17), relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of ShoreTel, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphsrelating to a) the Company’s adoption of Financial Accounting Standards BoardInterpretation No. 48, *Accounting forUncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,*effective July 1, 2007and b) the restatement of the consolidated financial statements for the yearsended June 30, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and our report dated September 10,2009 (November 5, 2009 as to the effects of the material weakness described inthe third paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over FinancialReporting (as revised)) relating to the effectiveness of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting, which report expresses an adverse opinion onthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting because of amaterial weakness, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ShoreTel,Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2009. 

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP 

San Jose, California
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Board of Directors
eMerge Interactive, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-39896 and No. 333-30632) on Form S-8 of eMerge Interactive, Inc. of our
report dated February 26, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
eMerge Interactive, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001, Form 10-K of eMerge Interactive,
Inc.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for hedging activity
in 2001.



                                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP


Orlando, Florida
April 1, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ligio Lopez, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 918]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 4, 2008 *(People v Lopez,*49 AD3d 559 [2008]), affirming an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated January 3, 2006.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Dillon, J.R.. Balkin, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

May 4, 2018 

t0419 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 4, 2018 

153828 (80) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 153828 

 COA: 324018 

Wayne CC: 14-000152-FC 

THEODORE PAUL WAFER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 9, 

2018 order is considered, and it appearing to this Court that the case of People v Davis

(Docket No. 156406) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that 

case may resolve an issue raised in the present motion for reconsideration, we ORDER 

that the motion for reconsideration be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that 

case.