alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 16.1









March 16, 2012




Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, DC 20549




Commissioners:




We have read the statements made by Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 4.01 of Form 8-K, as part of the Form 8-K of Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. dated March 16, 2012. We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 8-K.




Very truly yours,




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
§ 570.41 Medical escorted trips. ( a ) Medical escorted trips are intended to provide an inmate with medical treatment not available within the institution. There are two types of medical escorted trips. ( 1 ) *Emergency medical escorted trip.* An escorted trip occurring as the result of an unexpected life-threatening medical situation requiring immediate medical treatment not available at the institution. The required treatment may be on either an in-patient or out-patient basis.
( 2 ) *Non-emergency medical escorted trip.* A pre-planned escorted trip for the purpose of providing an inmate with medical treatment ordinarily not available at the institution. The required treatment may be on either an in-patient or out-patient basis.
( b ) The Clinical Director or designee is responsible for determining whether a medical escorted trip is appropriate.
( c ) *Escorted trip procedures—out-patient medical treatment.* A recommendation for an inmate to receive a medical escorted trip is prepared by medical staff, forwarded through the appropriate staff for screening and clearance, and then submitted to the Warden for review. The Warden may approve an inmate for an out-patient medical escorted trip.
( d ) *Escorted trip procedures—in-patient medical treatment.* A recommendation for an inmate to receive a medical escorted trip is prepared by medical staff, forwarded through the appropriate staff for screening and clearance, and then submitted to the Warden. The Warden may approve an inmate for an in-patient medical escorted trip.
[50 FR 48366, Nov. 22, 1985, as amended at 57 FR 21158, May 18, 1992]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 86056 / June 6, 2019

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18530

In the Matter of 

FERN HOLDINGS CORP.,

FORTUNE CAPITAL FINANCIAL HOLDING CORP.,

 and

GAMING ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

NOTICE THAT INITIAL DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL

The time for filing a petition for review of the initial decision in this proceeding has 

expired. No such petition has been filed by Fern Holdings Corp., Fortune Capital Financial 

Holding Corp., or Gaming Entertainment International, Inc., and the Commission has not chosen 

to review the decision on its own initiative.

Accordingly, notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule 360(d) of the Commission's Rules 

of Practice,1that the initial decision of the administrative law judge has become the final 

decision of the Commission with respect to Fern Holdings Corp., Fortune Capital Financial 

Holding Corp., and Gaming Entertainment International, Inc.2The order contained in that 

decision is hereby declared final. The initial decision ordered that, pursuant to Section 12(j) of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrations of each class of registered securities of 

Fern Holdings Corp., Fortune Capital Financial Holding Corp., and Gaming Entertainment

International, Inc., are revoked. The revocations are effective as of June 7, 2019.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

 Acting Secretary

 

1

 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(d).

2

 Fern Holdings Corp., Fortune Capital Fin. Holding Corp., Gaming Entm’t Int’l, Inc., and 

Glob. Food Technologies, Inc., Initial Decision Release No. 1364 (Mar. 8, 2019), 2019 WL

1098917. The Central Index Key numbers are: 1567517 for Fern Holdings Corp.; 1575259 for 

Fortune Capital Financial Holding Corp.; and 1576575 for Gaming Entertainment International,

Inc.
### §410yy–4. Cooperation by Federal agencies

(a) 1 Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the park shall—

(1) consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate its activities with the Secretary and the Commission;

(2) conduct or support such activities in a manner that—

(A) to the maximum extent practicable, is consistent with the standards and criteria established pursuant to the general management plan developed pursuant to section 410yy–5 of this title; and

(B) will not have an adverse effect on the resources of the park; and

(3) provide for full public participation in order to consider the views of all interested parties.

(Pub. L. 102–543, §5, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3571.)

1 So in original. No subsec. (b) has been enacted.
§ 540.44 Regular visitors. An inmate desiring to have regular visitors must submit a list of proposed visitors to the designated staff. See § 540.45 for qualification as special visitor. Staff are to compile a visiting list for each inmate after suitable investigation in accordance with § 540.51(b) of this part. The list may include: ( a ) *Members of the immediate family.* These persons include mother, father, step-parents, foster parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, and children. These individuals are placed on the visiting list, absent strong circumstances which preclude visiting.
( b ) *Other relatives.* These persons include grandparents, uncles, aunts, in-laws, and cousins. They may be placed on the approved list if the inmate wishes to have visits from them regularly and if there exists no reason to exclude them.
( c ) *Friends and associates.* The visiting privilege ordinarily will be extended to friends and associates having an established relationship with the inmate prior to confinement, unless such visits could reasonably create a threat to the security and good order of the institution. Exceptions to the prior relationship rule may be made, particularly for inmates without other visitors, when it is shown that the proposed visitor is reliable and poses no threat to the security or good order of the institution.
( d ) *Persons with prior criminal convictions.* The existence of a criminal conviction alone does not preclude visits. Staff shall give consideration to the nature, extent and recentness of convictions, as weighed against the security considerations of the institution. Specific approval of the Warden may be required before such visits take place.
( e ) *Children under sixteen.* Children under the age of 16 may not visit unless accompanied by a responsible adult. Children shall be kept under supervision of a responsible adult or a children's program. Exceptions in unusual circumstances may be made by special approval of the Warden.
[45 FR 44232, June 30, 1980, as amended at 56 FR 4159, Feb. 1, 1991; 68 FR 10658, Mar. 6, 2003]
§ 68.5 Notice of date, time, and place of hearing. ( a ) *Generally.* The Administrative Law Judge to whom the case is assigned shall notify the parties of a date, time, and place set for hearing thereon or for a prehearing conference, or both within thirty (30) days of receipt of respondent's answer to the complaint.
( b ) *Place of hearing.* In section 274B cases, pursuant to section 554 of title 5, United States Code, due regard shall be given to the convenience of the parties and the witnesses in selecting a place for a hearing. Sections 274A(e)(3)(B) and 274C(d)(2)(B) of the INA require that hearings be held at the nearest practicable place to the place where the person or entity resides or to the place where the alleged violation occurred.
[54 FR 48596, Nov. 24, 1989. Redesignated and amended by Order No. 1534-91, 56 FR 50053, 50054, Oct. 3, 1991; Order No. 1635-92, 57 FR 57672, Dec. 7, 1992]
### §425g. Protection of monuments, etc.

If any person shall, except by permission of the Secretary of the Interior, destroy, mutilate, deface, injure, or remove any monument, column, statue, memorial structure, or work of art that shall be erected or placed upon the grounds of the park by lawful authority, or shall destroy or remove any fence, railing, inclosure, or other work for the protection or ornament of said park, or any portion thereof, or shall destroy, cut, hack, bark, break down, or otherwise injure any tree, bush, or shrubbery that may be growing upon said park, or shall cut down or fell or remove any timber, battle relic, tree or trees growing or being upon said park, or hunt within the limits of the park, or shall remove or destroy any breastworks, earthworks, walls, or other defenses or shelter or any part thereof constructed by the armies formerly engaged in the battles on the lands or approaches to the park, any person so offending and found guilty thereof before any justice of the peace of the county in which the offense may be committed, or any court of competent jurisdiction, shall for each and every such offense forfeit and pay a fine, in the discretion of the justice, according to the aggravation of the offense, of not less than $5 nor more than $50, one-half for the use of the park and the other half to the informer, to be enforced and recovered before such justice in like manner as debts of like nature were, on February 14, 1927, by law recoverable in the several counties where the offense may be committed.

(Feb. 14, 1927, ch. 127, §8, 44 Stat. 1094; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §2, June 10, 1933; Ex. Ord. No. 6228, §1, July 28, 1933.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Transfer of administrative functions of park, see note set out under section 425 of this title.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Kopser, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company./s/ Mark A. Kopser Mark A. Kopser
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00473-CR

Miranda HERRERA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR6351

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2016

DISMISSED

Miranda Herrera and the State entered into a plea bargain under which Herrera pled guilty 

to attempted capital murder. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement 

and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Herrera timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, 

which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, 

has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 
04-16-00473-CR

- 2 -

The court gave Herrera notice that this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial 

court certification showing she has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record by 

August 30, 2016. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 

2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). No amended certification has been made part of 

the record. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).1

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH 

 1 The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended 

by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record also supports the trial 

court’s certification that Herrera does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate).
Pictured is an Caucasian male super hero washing his 

hands and with the text that says “Do good; Wash your 

hands!”
Ibimenyetso bya Koronavirusi (COVID-19)

cdc.gov/coronavirus

316475-R 06/02/2020

Menya ibimenyetso bya COVID-19 bishobora kuba bikubiyemo ibikurikira:

*Hita witabaza serivisi z’ubuvuzi niba hari umuntu ugaragaje 

ibimenyetso biburira byihutirwa bya COVID-19.

• Guhumeka bigoranye

• Ububabare cyangwa kokerwa 

bidashira mu gituza

• Gutakaza ubwenge

• Kutabasha kubyuka 

cyangwa gukanguka

• Kuma iminwa cyangwa 

gukanyarara mu maso

Inkorora Gutengurwa Kubabara imikaya

Kubura umwuka cyangwa 

guhumeka bigoranye*

Kutumva ibiryoshye/

ibirura cyangwa kudahu- murirwa/kutanukirwa

Kubabara mu muhogo

Ibimenyetso bishobora gutangira byoroheje bikagera ubwo 

umuntu aremba, kandi bigaragara hagati y’iminsi 2 na 14 nyuma 

yo guhura n’agakoko gatera COVID-19. 

Uru rutonde ntirukubiyemo ibimenyetso bishoboka byose. Hamagara muganga 

wawe mu gihe hari ibindi bimenyetso bikakaye cyangwa biguhangayikishije.

Umuriro
§ 541.32 Medical and mental health care in the SHU. ( a ) *Medical Care.* A health services staff member will visit you daily to provide necessary medical care. Emergency medical care is always available.
( b ) *Mental Health Care.* After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement in either administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status, mental health staff will examine you, including a personal interview. Emergency mental health care is always available.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Schuster, Respondent, v Village of Lake George Fire Department et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 619]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 25, 2005, which ruled that claimant was a covered employee under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law.

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter with the Village of Lake George Fire Department (hereinafter LGFD), was also self-employed in the vehicle repair business. Over the years, he had been retained in his business capacity to perform repair work *945on LGFD’s trucks and apparatus. Aside from that, he and other members of LGFD had also conducted routine maintenance activities as part of their duties as volunteer firefighters.

In April 2003, LGFD’s fire chief requested that claimant switch valves on two fire trucks. Claimant completed the job and thereafter noticed that one of the trucks was leaking water. Claimant then went underneath the truck and adjusted the pump packing to prevent further leakage. In so doing, his clothing got caught in the drive shaft of the truck, causing him to suffer bodily injuries.

The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently awarded claimant benefits, determining that he was acting in his role as a volunteer firefighter at the time that he was injured and, therefore, was a covered employee under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. This appeal by LGFD and its workers’ compensation carrier ensued.

Pursuant to Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 5 (2) (e), claimant’s entitlement to benefits hinged upon a finding by the Board that he was injured while in the course of his firefighter duties *(see Matter of Van Wert v Schaghticoke Volunteer Fire Dept.,*301 AD2d 831, 831 [2003]). Upon review of the record herein, we find that the Board’s resolution of this issue in favor of claimant is supported by substantial evidence *(see id.).*In that regard, LGFD’s fire chief testified that, although he expected to be billed by claimant for his services rendered in switching the valves, such a task did not require claimant to go underneath the truck and work on the pump. The fire chief further testified that sliding under the truck to adjust the pump was a separate activity which, unlike the valve work, was merely considered general maintenance that was done on a volunteer basis and was able to be performed by several of the firefighters, including claimant and the chief himself. Accordingly, despite the existence of evidence which might support a contrary conclusion, we affirm the Board’s decision that claimant was acting in his capacity as a volunteer firefighter at the time of his injury *(see Matter of Wald v Avalon Partners, Inc.,*23 AD3d 820, 821 [2005]; *Matter of Bugaj v Great Am. Transp., Inc.,*20 AD3d 612, 615 [2005]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                                2,631
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         9,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          11,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     24,569
<PP&E>                                               62,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                       31,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       55,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,373
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         55,954
<SALES>                                             108,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    108,484
<CGS>                                                82,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        82,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     21,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       4,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,833
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .42
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41248

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRINIDAD JAIMES-JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-179

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Trinidad Jaimes-Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after 

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court 

plainly erred when it enhanced his sentence based on a finding that his 1996 

Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was a 

felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i).

 

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

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

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015
No. 13-41248

2

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 

1678 (2013), as well as our decision in United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 

268 (5th Cir. 2005), he contends that the Louisiana statute under which he was 

convicted is broader than the drug trafficking offense definition set forth in the 

commentary to § 2L1.2 because it proscribes the possession with intent to give 

away and administer a controlled substance. Because Jaimes-Jaimes did not 

object to the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement in the district court, we review 

for plain error. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005), 

superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in United States v. 

Pimpton, 558 F. App’x 335, 337-38 (5th Cir. 2013).

In United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), 

petition for cert. filed (June 24, 2015) (No. 14-10355), we held that an 

enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is warranted regardless whether the 

conviction for the prior drug trafficking offense required proof of remuneration 

or commercial activity. Further, Jaimes-Jaimes has failed to establish a 

realistic probability that Louisiana would prosecute an individual under LA.

REV. STAT. ANN. § 40:966(A)(1) for administering a controlled substance “in a 

way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the 

federal sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 

460-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). Therefore, JaimesJaimes cannot show error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2015