alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
PATRICIA A. MCCULLEY , Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki , SECRETARY OF VETER ANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2012

- 7092

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 10

- 1362, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN B. W ELLS , Law Offices of John B. Wells, of Slidell, Louisiana , argued for claimant

- appellant

.

A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon dent

- appellee. O n the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Dire c-tor, M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R

. , Assistant Director , and J AMES S WEET , Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRNES , Deputy Assistant General Cou nsel, and L ARA E ILHARDT , Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it i s

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , C LEVENGER , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 21

, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
**DispatchChecklist #10**

**DispatchChecklist #10**

For the National Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**10-1Revised 2008**

**10-7Revised 2008**
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

/s/ Larry A. Goldstone

Larry A. Goldstone
President and Chief Operating Officer
March 20, 2003
**EXHIBIT
10-ii**
 
 **Analysts
International Corporation**
 
 **Summary
of 2005 Management Incentive Compensation Plan**
 
 
 The
following is a summary of the Company’s incentive compensation plan for fiscal
year 2005. Employees set forth below are eligible to receive the indicated
percentages of Gross Base Salary upon achieving certain pre-tax profit targets
of the Company. Certain non-executive employees’ incentive compensation will be
based on pre-tax profit and revenue growth targets set by the
Company.
 
 
 **At
      90%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      100%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      120%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      200%**
      **of
      Target**CEO
    20%
    30%
    70%
    140%President
    20%
    30%
    60%
    120%Other
      Executives1
    20%
    30%
    50%
    100%General
      Managers
    10%
    20%
    40%
    80%
 
 
 **At
      90%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      100%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      110%**
      **of
      Target**
    **At
      150%**
      **of
      Target**Area
      Managers
    10%
    20%
    40%
    80%
 
 At any
point between the performance percentages presented above, the covered employees
may be eligible to receive a pro-rata payout. For example, at 95% of plan the
CEO would receive a 25% payout.
 
 Payments
are subject to other eligibility requirements.
 
 
 
 1 The term “Other Executives” refers to the Chief Operating Officer, General
Counsel, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer, Senior Vice President of Business
Development/Strategy, and the Chief Information Officer.
Wildland Fire Fatality and Entrapment
INITIAL REPORT

Complete this report for fire-related entrapment and/or fatalities. Timely reporting of wildland-related
entrapments or fatalities is necessary for the rapid dissemination of accurate information to the fire
management community. It will also allow fire safety and equipment specialists to quickly respond to
these events as appropriate. This initial report does not replace agency reporting or investigative
responsibilities, policies, or procedures. Immediately notify the National Interagency Coordination Center
(NICC) Coordinator on Duty (COD) by phone, and then submit this written report to NICC within 24
hours—even if some data are missing—to the address given below.

NICC—National Interagency Fire Center Phone: 208-387-5400

3833 South Development Ave. Fax: 208-387-5414

Boise, ID 83705 Coordinator on Duty email: COD@bIm.gov
Submitted by: Position:

Agency: Location:

Phone: E-mail:

1. General Information

Date of event: Time:

Number of personnel involved:

Number of Injuries: Fatalities:

Fire name, location, agency, etc.:

2. Fatalities
Type of accident:
D Aircraft O Vehicle U1 Natural (lightning, drowning, etc.) (Smoke
C1 Medical (heart, stroke, heat, etc.) [J Entrapment 0 Struck by falling object

Where fatality/entrapment occurred:
Fire site C1 In transit U1 Incident base OD Other
Note: In the event of fatality(s), do not release name(s) until next of kin are notified.

Employing agency:

Unit name:

Address:

For further information, contact:

Phone:

PMS 405-1 (01/2016) Page 1 of 2



3. Fire-Related Information
Fuel Model:

Incident management type at time of the incident/accident: (check one)

O1 02 O03 O04 O85

Temperature: RH: Wind: Mph

Topography: Urban/wildland intermix?: [] Yes [] No
Slope: %

Fire size at the time of the incident/accident: acres

Cause of fire: C1 Natural Ui Incendiary C Accidental (1 Unknown

4. Entrapment Information

A situation where personnel are unexpectedly caught in a fire-behavior-related, life-threatening
position where escape routes or safety zones are absent, inadequate, or have been compromised.
An entrapment may or may not include deployment of a fire shelter. Note: Engine and dozer
burnovers also constitute entrapments.

Brief description of the accident:

Entrapment Description

Person trapped: (With shelter [[] Without shelter
Burns/smoke injuries while in shelter OlYes [No
Burns/smoke injuries while escaping entrapment OlYes [LINo
Burns/smoke injuries incurred while fighting fire OlYes [INo
Fire shelter performed satisfactorily OlYes [INo
Fire shelter was available, but not used OlYes [No
Personal Protective Equipment Used

Fire shelter ClYes [LINo

Gloves ClYes [LINo

Protective pants OlYes [IJNo

Boots OlYes [INo

Protective shirt OlYes [IJNo

Goggles OlYes [LIJNo

Face/neck protection OlYes [IJNo

Hardhat OlYes [IJNo

Page 2 of 2 PMS 405-1 (01/2016)
No. 97-60772

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60772

Summary Calendar

 

AIGUO XIE,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE.

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A73 485 519

- - - - - - - - - -

December 22, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aiguo Xie, a native and citizen of China who entered the

United States in 1992 as a non-immigrant foreign student, has

petitioned this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s

(BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an order of deportation. Although

he admits that he has not maintained his status as a full-time

student, he contends that he was wrongfully terminated from the 

doctoral program at Rutgers University and that he is willing to

continue his studies.
No. 97-60772

-2-

A review of the record reveals that the BIA’s decision was

supported by reasonable and substantial evidence. See

Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); see

also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)(i). Accordingly, Xie’s petition is

denied.

PETITION DENIED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2651 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on compound of barium 

magnesium aluminate phosphor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on compound 

of barium magnesium aluminate phosphor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPOUND OF BARIUM MAGNESIUM ALU4 MINATE PHOSPHOR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.64 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 compound of barium magnesium aluminate phosphor) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2651 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3

Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median

Gaming Revenue Range Submissions (in thousands) Submissions Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands)

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2019

$250 million and over 33 15,629,916 6.3% 45.2% $473,634 $386,381

$100 million to $250 million 62 10,444,602 11.9% 30.2% $168,461 $165,864

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,798,391 10.3% 11.0% $70,341 $66,958

$25 million to $50 million 67 2,360,435 12.8% 6.8% $35,230 $34,292

$10 million to $25 million 97 1,630,332 18.6% 4.7% $16,808 $16,185

$3 million to $10 million 90 594,918 17.2% 1.7% $6,610 $6,824

Under $3 million 119 119,948 22.8% 0.3% $1,008 $721

Total 522 34,578,542

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2018

$250 million and over 34 15,702,390 6.8% 46.6% $461,835 $381,315

$100 million to $250 million 59 9,658,287 11.8% 28.6% $163,700 $163,221

$50 million to $100 million 52 3,668,802 10.4% 10.9% $70,554 $68,739

$25 million to $50 million 69 2,439,840 13.8% 7.2% $35,360 $33,559

$10 million to $25 million 94 1,554,036 18.8% 4.6% $16,532 $16,277

$3 million to $10 million 91 590,180 18.2% 1.8% $6,485 $6,675

Under $3 million 102 106,033 20.4% 0.3% $1,040 $910

Total 501 33,719,569

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2017

$250 million and over 33 15,016,924 6.7% 46.3% $455,058 $363,086

$100 million to $250 million 56 9,058,782 11.3% 28.0% $161,764 $164,374

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,767,470 10.9% 11.6% $69,768 $69,893

$25 million to $50 million 68 2,382,602 13.8% 7.4% $35,038 $32,287

$10 million to $25 million 91 1,494,558 18.4% 4.6% $16,424 $15,749

$3 million to $10 million 89 575,005 18.0% 1.8% $6,461 $6,754

Under $3 million 103 108,586 20.9% 0.3% $1,054 $883

Total 494 32,403,927

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2016

$250 million and over 33 14,429,248 6.8% 46.3% $437,250 $363,632

$100 million to $250 million 51 8,286,641 10.5% 26.6% $162,483 $166,810

$50 million to $100 million 57 4,011,478 11.8% 12.9% $70,377 $67,928

$25 million to $50 million 67 2,290,169 13.8% 7.3% $34,182 $32,673

$10 million to $25 million 96 1,561,863 19.8% 5.0% $16,269 $15,825

$3 million to $10 million 85 521,096 17.6% 1.7% $6,131 $6,420

Under $3 million 95 95,055 19.6% 0.3% $1,001 $723

Total 484 31,195,549

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2015

$250 million and over 31 13,438,296 6.5% 45.0% $433,493 $364,412

$100 million to $250 million 48 7,912,634 10.1% 26.5% $164,847 $171,114

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,880,101 11.4% 13.0% $71,854 $69,112

$25 million to $50 million 69 2,466,214 14.6% 8.3% $35,742 $33,948

$10 million to $25 million 98 1,590,194 20.7% 5.3% $16,226 $15,676

$3 million to $10 million 79 495,275 16.7% 1.7% $6,269 $6,434

Under $3 million 95 99,031 20.0% 0.3% $1,042 $771

Total 474 $29,881,744

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through 11/19/2020.

NIGC Tribal Gaming Revenues

FY15-FY19 Gaming Revenues by Range
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Fred Wilkinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Columbia Laboratories, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterlyreport is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: May 10, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,977
<SECURITIES>                                     8,114
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,616
<PP&E>                                           8,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,900
<COMMON>                                       138,828
<OTHER-SE>                                   (120,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,043
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,805)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,805)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.91)
        

</TABLE>
----

Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION

I,  John L. Threshie Jr., certify that: 

(1)   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of The Tirex Corporation; 

(2)   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

(3)   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

(4)   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

(5)  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee ofthe small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting. 

/s/ John L. Threshie Jr.John L. Threshie Jr., CEO 

Date: November 13, 2006 

----
[942 NE2d 295, 917 NYS2d 86]

#### Azad Anand et al., Appellants, v Anoop Kapoor, Respondent.

Argued November 16, 2010;

decided December 21, 2010

*947APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Steven Cohn, P.C.,*Carle Place *(Steven Cohn*and *Susan E. Dantzig*of counsel), for appellants.

*Ryan, Perrone & Hartlein, P.C.,*Mineola *(William D. Hartlein*and *William T. Ryan*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

While playing golf with two friends at a nine-hole course in Suffolk County, defendant Anoop Kapoor “shanked” a shot, striking plaintiff Azad Anand in the left eye, with the errant ball. The accident occurred during play on the first hole. Kapoor’s second shot landed in the “rough.” Without waiting for Kapoor to retrieve his ball, Anand went to look for his on the fairway. Kapoor, meanwhile, found his ball and, without calling “Fore” or giving any other warning to his friends, hit the shot that went in an unintended direction and struck Anand. Anand suffered retinal detachment and permanent loss of vision in the injured eye.

Anand and his wife commenced this personal injury action against Kapoor, asserting that Kapoor’s failure to warn of his shot amounted to negligence and proximately caused Anand’s injury. After discovery, Supreme Court granted Kapoor’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, both for the reason that Anand was not in the foreseeable zone of danger and on assumption of risk grounds (2007 NY Slip Op 34463[U] [2007]). The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed (61 AD3d 787 [2009]). The same Court granted the Anands’ motion for leave to appeal to this Court. We now affirm.

A person who chooses to participate in a sport or recreational activity consents to certain risks that “are inherent in and arise *948out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” *(Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]). A court evaluating the duty of care owed to a plaintiff by a coparticipant in sport must therefore consider the risks that the plaintiff assumed and “how those assumed risks qualified defendant’s] duty to him” *(Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 438 [1986]). However, a plaintiff “will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks” *(Morgan,*90 NY2d at 485 [citations omitted]).

Here, Kapoor’s failure to warn of his intent to strike the ball did not amount to intentional or reckless conduct, and did not unreasonably increase the risks inherent in golf to which Anand consented. Rather, the manner in which Anand was injured— being hit without warning by a “shanked” shot while one searches for one’s own ball—reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf *(see Rinaldo v McGovern,*78 NY2d 729, 733 [1991]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.