alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Número Identificador

SEN2024 ______________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL ESPCECIAL

T- BOARDS, LLC

Apelante

v.

NEX GEN, LLC; SPIDER 

BILLBOARDS, LLC

Apelado

KLAN202300967

APELACIÓN

procedente del 

Tribunal de 

Primera 

Instancia, Sala 

Superior de

Fajardo

Civil Núm.:

FA2023CV00694

Sobre:

Interdicto 

Estatutario al 

Amparo del Art. 

14.1 de la Ley 161-

2009

Panel integrado por su presidenta, la Jueza Domínguez Irizarry, la 

Jueza Grana Martínez y la Jueza Boria Vizcarrondo.

Boria Vizcarrondo, Jueza Ponente.

SENTENCIA

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 21 de mayo de 2024.

En atención a la Moción en Cumplimiento de Orden de Mostrar 

Causa presentada el 15 de mayo de 2024 por la parte apelante, se 

declara con lugar a tenor con la Regla 83(A) del Reglamento del 

Tribunal de Apelaciones, 4 LPRA Ap. XXII-B, R.83 (A), por lo que se 

ordena el archivo definitivo de esta causa.

Lo acordó y manda el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
<PAGE>

Security and Exchange Commission
Exhibit 16

<TABLE>
<S>           <C>
(a)(1)(i)     Ernst & Young LLP, the former accountant for Craig Corporation,
              has resigned as of May 28, 1999.

(a)(1)(ii)    Ernst & Young LLP's reports on the financial statements for the
              years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997 did not contain adverse
              opinions or disclaimers of opinion and were not qualified or
              modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles.

(a)(1)(iii)   Ernst & Young LLP's resignation as of May 28, 1999 was
              communicated to the Craig Corporation's audit committee on June 3,
              1999.

(a)(1)(iv)    During the audit of Craig Corporation's fiscal years ended
              December 31, 1998 and 1997, there were no disagreements with Ernst
              & Young LLP on any matter of accounting principles or practices,
              financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures.

(a)(2)        Deloitte & Touche LLP has been engaged as the principal accountant
              to audit the financial statements of Craig Corporation and to
              audit the financial statements of Reading Entertainment, Inc., a
              significant majority owned subsidiary of the Craig Corporation, as
              of December 17, 1999.

(a)(2)(ii)(g) Deloitte & Touche LLP has reviewed this letter as of March
              2000.

(a)(3)        Ernst & Young LLP has reviewed this letter as of March 2000.
</TABLE>
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24" style="width: 618px;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 1. Likelihood of having children in the household who attended only in-person, only remote, or hybrid schooling last week, by sex and survey</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="1" scope="col">Survey</th>
<th scope="col">Women</th>
<th scope="col">Men</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>NLSY97, only in-person schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>35.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>NLSY97, only remote schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>32.3</td>
<td>27.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>NLSY97, hybrid schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>35.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>HPS, only in-person schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[2]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>30.7</td>
<td>39.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>HPS, only remote schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[2]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>22.8</td>
<td>16.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>HPS, hybrid schooling <a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes"><sup>[2]</sup></a></p>
</th>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>42.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p><a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24"><sup>[1]</sup></a> NLSY97 is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.</p>
<p><a href="#BLStable_2023_3_20_9_24"><sup>[2]</sup></a> HPS is the Household Pulse Survey.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and U.S. Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Gary D. Blackford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Gary D. Blackford                
|Gary D. Blackford                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 14, 2005
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH DISTRICT, AT EL PASO

No. 08-14-00170-CV

Isaias Martinez

v.

Laura Gonzalez

(No. 2010CM5553 IN 65TH DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$498.75

$105.50

$195.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

MONICA PADILLA

MONICA PADILLA

MONICA PADILLA

MONICA PADILLA

Balance of costs owing to the Eighth Court of Appeals, El Paso, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DENISE PACHECO, CLERK OF THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and

correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and

styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Eighth District of Texas, this May 25, 2018.

Denise Pacheco, Clerk

FILE COPY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: JEREMY ISARD :

:

:

No. 22 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of June, 2023, the Motion for Extension of Admission to 

Practice Law Pursuant to Pa.B.A.R. 311(g) is GRANTED.
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2022_8_26_9_52" style="width: 618px;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 2. Average hourly wages for business and financial occupations, by grouped work level, 2019</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Occupation</th>
<th scope="col">Entry</th>
<th scope="col">Intermediate</th>
<th scope="col">Experienced</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Loan officers</p>
</th>
<td>$25.01</td>
<td>$36.82</td>
<td>$52.72</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Claims adjusters, examiners, and investigators</p>
</th>
<td>23.36</td>
<td>34.86</td>
<td>50.49</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Compliance officers</p>
</th>
<td>23.37</td>
<td>30.64</td>
<td>49.44</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Cost estimator</p>
</th>
<td>29.24</td>
<td>33.25</td>
<td>49.88</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Human resources specialists</p>
</th>
<td>21.09</td>
<td>32.16</td>
<td>51.25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Logisticians</p>
</th>
<td>26.08</td>
<td>35.15</td>
<td>55.79</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Management analysts</p>
</th>
<td>25.45</td>
<td>37.97</td>
<td>55.77</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Fundraisers</p>
</th>
<td>22.92</td>
<td>28.78</td>
<td>47.35</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Training and development specialists</p>
</th>
<td>21.65</td>
<td>29.27</td>
<td>46.45</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Market research analysts and marketing specialists</p>
</th>
<td>22.57</td>
<td>35.40</td>
<td>57.56</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Accountants and auditors</p>
</th>
<td>25.21</td>
<td>34.98</td>
<td>52.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Budget analysts</p>
</th>
<td>30.73</td>
<td>34.74</td>
<td>47.55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Credit analysts</p>
</th>
<td>23.26</td>
<td>36.05</td>
<td>64.28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Insurance underwriters</p>
</th>
<td>24.20</td>
<td>33.74</td>
<td>52.22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Financial examiners</p>
</th>
<td>24.44</td>
<td>33.44</td>
<td>59.31</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2022_8_26_9_52_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="4">
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Modeled Wage Estimates.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0409 

LT Case No. 16-2009-015160-AXXX 

_____________________________ 

DESHAWN GREEN, 

Appellant,

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Kevin A. Blazs, Judge. 

Crystal M. Frusciante, of Crystal McBee Law Firm, P.A.,

Sunrise, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

October 24, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

JAY, BOATWRIGHT, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of Chittenden Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2006 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

|                         |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 26, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    KIRK W. WALTERS                              
|                         |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Margot *v.*Schnetzer and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

February 5, 1883.)

Patents for Inventions—Doubt as to Novelty—Injunction Nisl

In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction.

*James E. Maynadier,*for complainant.

*Avery é Hobbs,*for defendants.

Lowell, J.

This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. The suit is upon patent No. 12,775, dated February 21, 1882, for a design for watch-cases. The defendants copied the plaintiff’s design before it was patented, and without knowing that a patent was to be applied for, and they are ready to stop infringing. The damages must be small, and I should wish to end the case here, if that were possible; but a serious doubt is raised as to the novelty of the design, by the affidavit of one Smith, and by the admissions of the plaintiff in his affidavit in reply to Smith, so that I think an injunction *nisi*is all that I ought to grant.

Injunction *nisi.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      26,818,376
<SECURITIES>                                38,435,821
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,477,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                   407,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,782,438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,439,420
<PP&E>                                       7,424,816
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,683,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,127,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,077,843
<BONDS>                                      3,433,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       169,824
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,140,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,127,367
<SALES>                                      9,659,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,659,377
<CGS>                                        3,083,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,419,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (786,045)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7155
MICHAEL LEE ROY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LORRAINE SINGLETON, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-96-369) Submitted: November 19, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lee Roy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Roy v. Singleton , No. CA-96-369 (E.D. Va. July 17, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6971
PERRY FERNESE WESLEY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VANESSA P. ADAMS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-732-3) Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action requesting a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wesley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wesley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wesley has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.- 3 - 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.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00691-CV

In re Johnny Ray Valchar

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court had not

satisfied its statutory duties under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure with regard to an

application of writ of habeas corpus he filed on or about September 8, 2010. The trial court has since

informed this Court that it has issued an order with findings of fact and conclusions of law and has

ordered the application and related documents to be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals. A

copy of the trial court’s order has been sent to Valchar. Therefore, the trial court has complied with

the statute and Valchar has received the relief he sought through his petition for writ of mandmaus.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: October 26, 2010
##### 



/s/ K. Whipple

Kenneth Whipple
    
    /s/ P. R. Lochner, Jr.

Philip R. Lochner, Jr./s/ Merribel S. Ayres
    
    /s/ M. T. MonahanMerribel S. Ayres
    
    Michael T. Monahan/s/ Jon E. Barfield
    
    /s/ Joseph F. Paquette, Jr.Jon E. Barfield
    
    Joseph F. Paquette, Jr./s/ Richard M. Gabrys
    
    /s/ Percy A. PierreRichard M. Gabrys
    
    Percy A. Pierre/s/ D. W. Joos
    
    /s/ K. L. WayDavid W. Joos
    
    Kenneth L. Way/s/ John B. YasinskyJohn B. Yasinsky
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          66,544
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,234
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,043
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    116,798
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         270,233
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           263,716
<LOANS>                                      2,603,426
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,098,271
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,991,161
<SHORT-TERM>                                   586,484
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             59,024
<LONG-TERM>                                    251,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,098,271
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 97,205
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,444
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   695
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               111,344
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              45,306
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,928
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           40,416
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      345
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  82
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,474
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      21,474
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,566
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.87
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,765
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   444
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,216
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,404
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      880
<RECOVERIES>                                       271
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,140
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            24,140
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         23,882


</TABLE>