alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-61208-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

SIMPLIFIED IMAGING & DIAGNOSTICS,

SIMPLIFIED IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC

d/b/a IMAGING SOLUTIONS (SIS),

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PETER ROUVELAS, M.D., P.C.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COME NOW the undersigned counsel and file this Notice of Appearance as counsel of

record for Defendant Peter Rouvelas, M.D., P.C., in the above styled proceedings, having been

retained for this purpose. Defendant Dr. Rouvelas waives no defenses or objections by making

this filing. The undersigned requests that all pleadings and papers in this matter be served on

counsel for Defendant Peter Rouvelas, M.D., P.C., at the following address:

LANCE O. LEIDER, J.D., LL.M.

Florida Bar No.: 96408

Primary E-mail: LLeider@TheHealthLawFirm.com

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com

TRIAL COUNSEL/LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

THE HEALTH LAW FIRM, P.A.

1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

Telephone: (407) 331-6620

Telefax: (407) 331-3030

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

PETER ROUVELAS, M.D., P.C.

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have filed this document electronically with the Clerk of

Court via the CM/ECF System, which automatically serves all counsel of record, this 3rd day of

August 2020.

/s/ Lance O. Leider

__________________________________________

LANCE O. LEIDER, J.D., LL.M.

Florida Bar No.: 96408

Primary E-mail: LLeider@TheHealthLawFirm.com

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com

TRIAL COUNSEL/LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GEORGE F. INDEST III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M.

Florida Bar No.: 382426

Primary e-mail: GIndest@TheHealthLawFirm.com

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com

TRIAL COUNSEL/LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CAROLE C. SCHRIEFER, J.D.

Florida Bar No.: 835293

Primary e-mail: CSchriefer@thehealthlawfirm.com

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com

TRIAL COUNSEL/LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

THE HEALTH LAW FIRM, P.A.

1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

Telephone: (407) 331-6620

Telefax: (407) 331-3030

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

PETER ROUVELAS, M.D., P.C.

GFI/pa - S:\2600-2699\2670\001\410-Pleadings-Drafts & Finals\Notice of Appearance-LOL.wpd

- 2 -

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60672 Summary Calendar

SILVIA MARLENE ORTEGA

- HERNANDEZ; SILVIA YAMILETH RODRIGUEZ

- ORTEGA , Petitioner s

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 846 102 BIA No. A206 846 103

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Silvia Mar lene Ortega

- Hernandez and her daughter Silvia Yamileth Rodriguez

- Ortega, are natives and citizens of El Salvador who entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. They have filed a petition seeking review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60672 Document: 00514771099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2018N o. 17

- 60672

2 dismissing their appeal from the immigration j udge’s (IJ’s) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s determ inations regarding the petitioners’ eligibility for immigration relief, both decisions are reviewable. Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). This court reviews findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id. Although the BIA erred by conclu ding that the IJ found that the

p etitioners failed to establish a nexus between the feared persecution and a protected ground, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See id. The IJ’s finding that the p etit ioners fa iled to
demonstrate an objective fear of persecution is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. The

p etitioners complain that the BIA and IJ failed to consider the four

- factor test,
but the p etitio ners fail to demonstrate that Mara 18 members have the inclination to punish their family memb ers. See Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). While the p etitioners contend that the BIA addressed only whether the Salvadoran government was wi lling, and not whether it was able, to control criminal gangs, as long as a government is taking reasonable steps to protect its citizens from harm in question, such efforts are sufficient to defeat a claim that it is either unable or unwilling to control private parties. Accordingly, the p etitioners fail to show that they were eligible for asylum. See Wang , 569 F.3d at 536. The p etitioners have also failed to meet the higher standard of showing that they are entitled to withholding of
removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 17-60672 Document: 00514771099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2018
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-38 April 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC PROPOSES $200,000 FINE AGAINST NIAGARA MOHAWK

FOR QUALITY, DESIGN CONTROL WEAKNESSES AT NINE MILE POINT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$200,000 fine against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for

alleged violations of agency requirements at the Nine Mile Point

(NMP) Units 1 and 2 nuclear power plants in Oswego, N.Y.

Identified during NRC inspections conducted between October 7 and

November 30, 1996, the violations fall into two main areas: the

failure to identify and/or correct several adverse quality

conditions, and the failure to maintain appropriate design

controls.

A number of the deficiencies were identified because of the

following circumstances:

ˇ At Unit 1, in November 1996, a failure to control

reactor water level after an automatic shutdown resulted in the

inadvertent overfill of the reactor vessel and the introduction

of water into the main steam lines.

ˇ At Unit 2, during the spring 1995 refueling outage, a

failure to properly clean the suppression pool led to a failure

to identify debris in the drywell-to-suppression pool downcomers.

Debris in the downcomers, or pipes connecting the drywell to the

suppression pool, could have impacted the functioning of various

safety equipment.

ˇ Inadequate justification for use of a certain design

input in calculations used to estimate the ability of four Unit 2

motor-operated valves to operate under certain conditions.

ˇ Inadequate evaluations and corrective actions to

maintain the Unit 2 reactor core isolation cooling system.

ˇ An incorrect setpoint for the Unit 2 control room

chiller condenser water low flow trip.

"With respect to the corrective action violations, the

overfill event at Unit 1 is particularly disturbing," Region I

Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote in a letter to Niagara

Mohawk. Previously, Mr. Miller said, Nine Mile Point did not

adequately respond to industry information to ensure the

combination of training, procedures and system design was
adequate to prevent such an event.

The event raises concerns about operator knowledge of some

fundamental aspects of plant design and operating procedures, he

said.

Regarding the other corrective action violations, the

administrator wrote that "failure to promptly identify and

correct conditions which could degrade safety equipment also

represents a significant regulatory concern."

Mr. Miller, addressing the design control violations, said,

"Lack of rigor in technical evaluations, personnel errors, and

lack of management oversight and verfication led to questionable

design decisions on safety-related MOVs (motor-operated valves),

longstanding deficient conditions and incorrect equipment

modifications."

Niagara Mohawk has 30 days either to pay the proposed fine

or request in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn.

#
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000397

23-APR-2019

09:00 AM
#### New York Casualty Company, Appellant, v. Peter R. Kuhn et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff granted as demanded in the complaint on the ground that there are no triable issues. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 964.]
[EXHIBIT 24.1]


     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 Med Gen, Inc. (the "Issuer")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul B. Kravitz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Issuer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Issuer.

By: /s/ Paul B. Kravitz
   ------------------------------------
   Paul B. Kravitz
   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
   November 13, 2002




     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 Med Gen, Inc. (the "Issuer")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul B. Kravitz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Issuer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents


By: /s/ Jack Chien
   ----------------------------------
   Jack Chien
   Vice President, Finance and Chief
   Financial Officer
   November 13, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.1006 Certification not required. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an importer will not be required to submit a copy of a certification under § 10.1004 of this subpart for: ( 1 ) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
( 2 ) A commercial importation for which the value of the originating goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Center director determines that an importation described in paragraph (a) of this section is part of a series of importations carried out or planned for the purpose of evading compliance with the certification requirements of § 10.1004 of this subpart, the Center director will notify the importer that for that importation the importer must submit a copy of the certification. The importer must submit such a copy within 30 days from the date of the notice. Failure to timely submit a copy of the certification will result in denial of the claim for preferential tariff treatment.
[77 FR 15948, Mar. 19, 2012, as amended by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93014, Dec. 20, 2016]
#### Dora Pines, Respondent, v. Sadie Novick and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Eagle Savings and Loan Company, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—- The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: *967Appeal dismissed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.
§ 107.200 Adequate capital for Licensees. You must meet the requirements of this § 107.200 to qualify for a license, to continue as a Licensee, and to receive Leverage. ( a ) You must have enough Regulatory Capital to provide reasonable assurance that: ( 1 ) You will operate soundly and profitably over the long term; and
( 2 ) You will be able to operate actively in accordance with your Articles and within the context of your business plan, as approved by SBA.
( b ) In SBA's sole discretion, you must be economically viable, taking into consideration actual and anticipated income and losses on your Loans and Investments, and the experience and qualifications of your owners and managers.
#### § 150.2 Definitions.

*Civil defense officer* (or member of a recognized civil defense or emergency preparedness organization) means any individual who is assigned to and is performing the assigned tasks of the unit or organization which has been given a mission under the direction or operational control of a Civil Defense or Emergency Preparedness Director/Coordinator in accordance with a Federal, State or local emergency plan and sanctioned by the government concerned. This also includes emergency management officers. This includes volunteers and paid employees for any governmental entity.

*Distinguished Public Safety Service Award* means the *Secretary's Award for Distinguished Public Safety Service,* presented by either the Attorney General or the Administrator of FEMA to public safety officers for distinguished service in the field of public safety.

*FEMA* means the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

*Firefighter* means a member, regardless of rank or duties, of any organization (including such Federal organizations) in any State consisting of personnel, apparatus, and equipment which has as its purpose protecting property and maintaining the safety and welfare of the public from the dangers of fire. This term includes volunteer or paid employees. The location of any such organization may include, but is not limited to, a Federal installation, a State, city, town, borough, parish, county, fire district, rural fire district or other special district.

*Joint Board* means the Joint Public Safety Awards Board established by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Attorney General to carry out the purposes of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974.

*Law enforcement officer* means a person involved in the control or reduction of crime and juvenile delinquency or enforcement of the criminal laws. This includes, but is not limited to, police, corrections, probation, parole, and court officers, and Federal civilian officers in such capacities.

*Nominating official* means the head of a Federal government department or agency, or his delegatee(s), the governor or other head of a State, or the chief executive or executives of any general governmental unit within any State.

*President's Award* means the President's Award for Outstanding Public Safety Service, presented by the President of the United States to public safety officers for extraordinary valor in the line of duty or for outstanding contributions to public safety.

*Public safety officer* means a person serving a public agency, with or without compensation, as a firefighter, a civil defense officer (or member of a recognized civil defense or emergency preparedness organization), or a law enforcement officer, including a corrections or court officer.

*State* means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and any other territory or possession of the United States.
#### § 333.83 Communications.

General communications concerning this part, including how to obtain copies of this part and explanatory information, requests for guidance or clarification, may be addressed to FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis at *FEMA-DPA@fema.dhs.gov.*
§ 15.5 Preservation of property. At both Mt. Weather and NETC we prohibit: ( a ) The improper disposal of rubbish;
( b ) Willful destruction of or damage to property;
( c ) Theft of property;
( d ) Creation of any hazard on the property to persons or things;
( e ) Throwing articles of any kind from or at a building;
( f ) Climbing upon a fence; or
( g ) Climbing upon the roof or any part of a building.
Exhibit 15.4





[Verstegen accountants en adviseurs Letterhead]





To the board of directors and shareholders of


Magic Benelux B.V.


Pelmolen 17


3994 XX HOUTEN





Dordrecht, March 17, 2011





Ref.: KH/VK/JV





Dear Sirs,





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of our report dated January 28, 2011, including in this annual report of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.





On behalf of Verstegen accountants en adviseurs,





/s/ Drs. L.K. Hoogendoorn RA MGADrs. L.K. Hoogendoorn RA MGA.
§ 142.1 Overview of regulations. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This part implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 (“the Act”). The Act provides SBA and other federal agencies with an administrative remedy to impose civil penalties and assessments against persons making false claims and statements. The Act also provides due process protections to all persons who are subject to administrative proceedings under this part.
( b ) *Possible remedies for program fraud.* In addition to any other penalty which may be prescribed by law, a person who submits, or causes to be submitted, a false claim or a false statement to SBA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $13,946 for each statement or claim, regardless of whether property, services, or money is actually delivered or paid by SBA. If SBA has made any payment, transferred property, or provided services in reliance on a false claim, the person submitting it is also subject to an assessment of not more than twice the amount of the false claim. This assessment is in lieu of damages sustained by SBA because of the false claim.
[61 FR 2691, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 31492, May 19, 2016; 82 FR 9969, Feb. 9, 2017; 83 FR 7363, Feb. 21, 2018; 84 FR 12061, Apr. 1, 2019; 85 FR 13727, Mar. 10, 2020; 86 FR 52957, Sept. 24, 2021; 87 FR 28758, May 11, 2022; 88 FR 50005, Aug. 1, 2023; 89 FR 48134, June 5, 2024]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony CAUSWELL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7345.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Anthony Causwell, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Causwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Causwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral *764argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insightful
Corporation  for  the  quarter  ended  March  31,  2003,  the  undersigned, Fred
Schapelhouman,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Insightful Corporation, does hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     3)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
          2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     4)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
          the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Insightful Corporation.


Date:  May 12, 2003                     By:       /s/ Fred Schapelhouman
     --------------                        -------------------------------------
                                                    Fred Schapelhouman
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

 

**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 TransAlta Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald Tremblay, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   /s/ Donald   Tremblay |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Donald Tremblay                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer           |   |

 

Dated: February 18, 2016

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----