alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ST. ANTHONY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

No. C 84-37.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

Oct. 12, 1984.

*24ORDER

McMANUS, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment, filed June 6 and July 2, 1984. Plaintiffs, Iowa hospitals providing services to medicare patients, are challenging a regulation issued by defendant. The regulation set forth in 42 CFR § 404.452(b)(1)(h) (1982) (hereinafter “Malpractice Rule"), restructures the manner in which reimbursement for the cost of malpractice insurance premiums is made to plaintiffs and other health care providers under the medicare program. Plaintiffs contend that the Malpractice Rule is invalid because it is contrary to the Medicare Act, 42 USC § 1395 et seq.; it was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC § 553; and it violates plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to just compensation and due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

These issues have been previously raised in fifteen district courts. Eleven district courts have held the Malpractice Rule invalid. *See e.g. Menorah Medical Center v. Heckler,*No. 83-0822-CV-W-4, slip op. (W.D.Mo. July 26, 1984); *Bedford County Memorial Hospital v. Heckler,*583 F.Supp. 367 (W.D.Va.1984); *St. James Hospital v. Heckler,*579 F.Supp. 757 (N.D.Ill.1983). Four courts have upheld the Malpractice Rule. *See e.g. Boswell Memorial Hospital v. Heckler,*573 F.Supp. 884 (D.D.C.1983); *Athens Community Hospital v. Heckler,*565 F.Supp. 695 (E.D.Tenn.1983). After a review of the briefs 1 and arguments by the parties in this action, and a review of the decisions rendered by the various courts who have confronted these questions, it is the court’s opinion that defendant failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating the Malpractice Rule, and that the Malpractice Rule violates the Medicare Act by denying the plaintiffs reimbursement for the reasonable costs of services rendered to medicare patients. The court’s decision is based upon the same analysis set forth in *Bedford County,*583 F.Supp. 367 and *St. James,*579 F.Supp. 757. These existing decisions are well-reasoned and therefore a detailed analysis by this court would be surplusage. Since the court has determined that the regulation is invalid on statutory grounds, it need not address plaintiff’s claim that it also violates the Fifth Amendment.

It is therefore

ORDERED

1. Plaintiffs’ motion granted, defendant’s motion denied.

2. Remanded to the Secretary for further action consistent with this order.

1

. The court notes that plaintiffs’ and defendant's briefs are inexcusably long. *See*Local Rule 2.2.9.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. JOSEPH KAI CHENG, aka Kam Kai Cheng, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-50278.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 5, 2008.*

Filed June 11, 2008.

Mark Aveis, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, *536Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael J. Treman, Michael J. Treman Attorney at Law, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *536R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable David G. Campbell, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-appellant Joseph Kai Cheng appeals his 30-month sentence imposed pursuant to his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and contraband cigarettes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and to one count of trafficking in counterfeit goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range and did not abuse its discretion in applying Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.3. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir.2006).

Because Cheng failed to object at sentencing to the standard of proof used to establish the infringement amount we review for plain error. *See United States v. Riley,*335 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir.2003); *see also*Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The weight of the evidence would satisfy even the clear and convincing standard. The district court properly determined that the infringement amount was in excess of $1 million.

The district court did not clearly err in declining to apply a four-level decrease for Cheng’s role in the offense. *See Cantrell,*433 F.3d at 1283.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Schick Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey T. Slovin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Jeffrey T. Slovin
                                               ---------------------------
                                               Jeffrey T. Slovin
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Schick Technologies, Inc.
                                               November 11, 2004


                                       17
(logo)pwc

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors and Managementof

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in theaccompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable ServicingCriteria, that Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company")compliedwiththeservicingcriteriasetforthinItem1122(d)oftheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for the Commercial Mortgage-Backed SecurityTransactions - RegAB Portfolio (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C)&(D),1122(d)(3)(ii),1122(d)(3)(iii),1122(d)(3)(iv),and1122(d)(4)(xv),whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform. Exhibit C to management'sassertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securitiesdefined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsiblefor the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 22, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP, 300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017*

*T:(646) 471 3000, F: (646) 471 8320, www.pwc.com/us*

* *
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
    
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
Number 33-66826 (dated August 2, 1993 on Form S-8), Number 33-78546 (dated May
2, 1994 on Form S-8), Number 33-71416 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Form
S-1 on Form S-3 dated May 16, 1995), Number 33-95432 (dated August 4, 1995 on
Form S-8), Number 333-1748 (dated March 28, 1996 on Form S-3), Number 333-19471
(dated January 9, 1997 on Form S-3), File No. 333-33321 (dated August 8, 1997 on
Form S-3), and File No. 333-47077 (dated February 27, 1998 on Form S-3) of
DynaGen, Inc., of our report dated April 14, 1998, which included an explanatory
paragraph about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, appearing
in this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of DynaGen, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1997.

 
                                          /s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.
 
Boston, Massachusetts
June 10, 1998
f8k021111ex10xi_kurrant.htm


Exhibit 10.11


 


Sales and Purchase Agreement


Contract #: YG20101209


Party A (Supplier): Shanghai Yuangong Trading Co., Ltd.


Party B (Purchaser): Shandong Zhidali Co., Ltd.


 



	
1.  

	
Ordered Products:







 



	
Name

	
Origins

	
Model

	
Amount (ton)

	
Unit Price (¥)

	
Total Price (¥)


	
Galvanized Steel Coil (Fingerprint Resistant)

	
New Dazhong

	
0.5*1000*C

	
4.88

	
7,100

	
55,948.00


	
Note:

	
includes processing fees

	
Total

	
55,948.00


	
Total

	
55,948.00

	
               Total: 55,948.00







 



	
2.  

	
Payments:







 



	
1)  

	
Wire: The above contractual price is only good on the day of the entrance of this Agreement (12/09/2010). (The actual delivered weight shall be based on the actual weights at the time of leaving the storages).







 



	
2)  

	
Upon the actual received amount, Party A shall issue Party B full amount of added value tax invoices and the service invoices for processing works, if any.







 



	
3.  

	
Delivery:







 



	
1)  

	
The delivery shall be made water/ sun burn/dirt proofing and any damages caused during the delivery shall be subject to the negotiation for solution between Party B and the diver(s).  Party A does not assume any liabilities to such damages.







 



	
2)  

	
Delivery Address: New Dazhong, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province.  Party B shall be solely responsible to pick up the orders.







 



	
4.  

	
Reasonable Losses on Transportation: according to the national standard, the difference shall be within 0.3% of the standard weight as labeled by the Supplier or the weight at the time of leaving the storages.







 



	
5.  

	
Quality Control: 1st Grade under the Copper Product Standards.  Any disputes on the quality issue shall be submitted by written request to the steel manufactory with original ordered products, invoices, receipts and related documents for resolution.







 



	
6.  

	
Breaching Liability: Any disputes between the parties under this Agreement shall be resolved through amicable negotiations in good faith.  In the event that the disputes can not resolved through negotiation, either party shall have the right to submit the dispute to local courts where this Agreement was entered.







 



	
7.  

	
Miscellaneous: This Agreement shall executed in two copies with one copy to each party (faxed copy shall deem original) and shall be effective upon the parties’ signatures. Upon the fully performance of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be deemed expired.







 



	
Supplier: Shanghai Yuangong Trading Co., Ltd.


Tel.: 021-36301327


Fax: 021- 33713678 


Bank: China Agricultural Bank Shanghai City 


 


Baoshan District Youyi Branch


Bank Account: 104231900040053409


Seal: [Corporate Seal-Seal for Contract Only] 


Agent:

	Purchaser: Shandong Zhidali Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Tel.:


Fax:


Bank:


 


Bank Account:


Seal: [Corporate Seal-Seal for Contract Only]


Agent: [Signature of Zhiqiang Yang]                                                                         


Date: 12/10/2010
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 15, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1544

Lower Tribunal No. 13-28096

________________

Brett Weinberg,

Appellant,

vs.

GEICO General Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I.

Rodriguez, Judge.

Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale); Scott J.

Edwards, P.A., and Scott Edwards (Boca Raton); The Law Offices of Brett A.

Weinberg, and Brett A. Weinberg, for appellant.

Young, Bill, Boles, Palmer & Duke, P.A., and B. Richard Young, Adam A.

Duke, Michel A. Morgan and Derek L. Veliz, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Because Appellee

GEICO concedes Appellant Brett Weinberg’s entitlement to (but not the amount

of) fees based on GEICO’s confession of judgment, and because the trial court’s

summary judgment retained jurisdiction to address the parties’ claims for fees, we

do not reach the fee issue raised by Appellant.

Affirmed.

2
Exhibit 31.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ JOHN V. GENOVAJohn V. GenovaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             APR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          57,943                       0
<SECURITIES>                                       441                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,250                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,390                       0
<PP&E>                                          23,925                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,175                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,164                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,274                       0
<BONDS>                                          2,626                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           248                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,821                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,164                       0
<SALES>                                         17,295                  17,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,295                  17,295
<CGS>                                           11,528                  11,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,528                  11,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,075                   4,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59                      59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,013                   1,594
<INCOME-TAX>                                       805                     638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,208                     956
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,208                     956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
[942 NYS2d 862]

#### 339-347 E. 12th St. LLC, Appellant, v Thomas Ling, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 8, 2012

*31APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rose & Rose,*New York City *(David P. Haberman*of counsel), for appellant. *Thomas Ling,*New York City, respondent pro se, and for Huw Beynon, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated October 22, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, and petition reinstated.

This holdover summary proceeding, ostensibly based upon the expiration of the residential tenant’s most recent unregulated lease agreement, is not susceptible to summary dismissal. Even assuming, without deciding, that tenant’s proof was sufficient to give rise to the statutory presumption of landlord retaliation *(see*Real Property Law § 223-b [5]), the pre-answer record now before us raises but does not resolve several material triable issues, including whether the dispossess proceeding was commenced in retaliation for any good faith actions previously taken by tenant in enforcing his lease rights and, if so, whether the landlord “would not otherwise have commenced” the proceeding (Real Property Law § 223-b [4]) but for the tenant’s protected activity *(see Velez v Frion Realty Corp.,*300 AD2d 103 [2002]; *Webster Apts. Corp. v Baglivo,*NYLJ, Mar. 28, 1989, at 22, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]). The burden of establishing the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction lies with its proponent, the tenant, and, as one noted commentator has observed: “To succeed in this difficult task, the tenant must show the landlord’s state of mind, purposes, and motives, relying almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence” (3 Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 43:34, at 134 [4th ed]). It would be a rare case indeed in which sufficient proof of landlord’s subjective, retaliatory state of mind was presented on papers alone. This is not such a case.

Hunter, Jr., J.E, Schoenfeld and Torres, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet and the Consolidated Statement of Operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,062,685
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,781,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    4,409,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,648,031
<PP&E>                                         1,353,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,397,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,931,220
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,209
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,097,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,397,984
<SALES>                                        6,115,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,115,740
<CGS>                                          5,513,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,156,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (15,334)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             57,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (595,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (595,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (595,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)
        


</TABLE>