alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50495 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FREDY OSIRIS SUAREZ-BACA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-724-ALL-EP

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fredy Osiris Suarez-Baca appeals the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Suarez-Baca complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He arguesNo. 01-50495 -2- that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively, Suarez-Baca contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Suarez-Baca acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issues for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). SuarezBaca’s arguments are foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. Suarez-Baca has filed a motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. By accepting the assistance of counsel, Suarez-Baca has waived any opportunity to present pro se pleadings on direct appeal. See Myers v. Johnson , 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996) ; 5th Cir. R. 28.7. The motion is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED; MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.
§ 424.106 Criteria for determining whether the hospital was the most accessible. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* ( 1 ) The hospital must be the most accessible one available and equipped to furnish the services.
( 2 ) CMS determines accessibility based on the factors specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and the conditions set forth in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) *Factors that are considered.* CMS considers the following factors in determining whether a nonparticipating hospital in a rural area meets the accessibility requirements: ( 1 ) The relative distances of participating and nonparticipating hospitals in the area.
( 2 ) The transportation facilities available to these hospitals.
( 3 ) The quality of the roads to each hospital.
( 4 ) The availability of beds at each hospital.
( 5 ) Any other factors that bear on whether or not the services could be provided sooner in the nonparticipating hospitals than in a participating hospital in the general area. In urban and suburban areas where both participating and nonparticipating hospitals are similarly available, CMS presumes that the services could have been provided in a participating hospital unless clear and convincing evidence shows that there was a medical or practical need to use the nonparticipating hospital.
( c ) *Factors that are not considered.* CMS gives no consideration to the following factors in determining whether the nonparticipating hospital was the most accessible hospital: ( 1 ) The personal preference of the beneficiary, the physician, or members of the family.
( 2 ) The fact that the attending physician did not have staff privileges in a participating hospital which was available and the most accessible to the beneficiary.
( 3 ) The location of previous medical records.
( d ) *Conditions under which the accessibility requirement is met.* If a beneficiary must be taken to a hospital immediately for required diagnosis and treatment, the nonparticipating hospital meets the accessibility requirement if— ( 1 ) It was the nearest hospital to the point where the emergency occurred, it was medically equipped to handle the type of emergency, and it was the most accessible, on the basis of the factors specified in paragraph (b) of this section; or
( 2 ) There was a closer participating hospital equipped to handle the emergency, but the participating hospital did not have a bed available or would not accept the individual.
# C_2006137EN.01000101.xml

| 10.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 June 2006

(2006/C 137/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2659 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,25 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4564 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68685 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2243 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5569 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,43 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8165 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,225 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,12 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9605 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5159 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,866 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9499 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6902 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4067 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8247 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9999 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0183 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 208,30 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,4831 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1500 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2565 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 899,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,642 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,257 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,1820 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,532 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2659

JPY

Japanese yen

144,25

DKK

Danish krone

7,4564

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68685

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2243

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5569

ISK

Iceland króna

93,43

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8165

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,225

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,12

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9605

RON

Romanian leu

3,5159

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,866

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9499

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6902

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4067

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8247

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9999

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0183

KRW

South Korean won

1 208,30

ZAR

South African rand

8,4831

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1500

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2565

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 899,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,642

PHP

Philippine peso

67,257

RUB

Russian rouble

34,1820

THB

Thai baht

48,532

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
No. 99-8966.

#### Willis *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 417.538 Enrollment and marketing costs. ( a ) *Principle.* Costs incurred by an HMO or CMP in performing the enrollment and marketing activities described in subpart k of this part are allowable.
( b ) *Included costs.* Allowable enrollment and marketing costs are those necessary and proper costs incurred in offering the HMO's or CMP's plan to potential enrollees in accordance with this part. Those costs include selling, advertising, promotional, and other marketing costs and may not exceed an amount that would be incurred by a prudent and cost-conscious management.
( c ) *Application.* Enrollment and marketing costs are allowable, whether incurred directly by HMO or CMP staff or under contract with marketing specialists or other outside consultants.
( d ) *Limitation on payment.* The relatively higher costs that an HMO or CMP is likely to incur in initially offering its plan to Medicare beneficiaries are taken into account in determining whether enrollment and marketing costs are reasonable in amount. However, if those costs exceed amounts that would be paid by prudent management, the excess is not allowable.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 46230, Sept. 6, 1995]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Equatorial Guinea National Day

# 									Equatorial Guinea National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 12, 2021

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend congratulations to all Equatoguineans on the 53rd anniversary of your independence.

The United States values our relationship with Equatorial Guinea, and we are committed to our partnership that is working to end the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from its impact, combat trafficking in persons, and promote maritime security and economic growth.  In the coming year, we will continue to support Equatoguinean efforts to improve democratic governance and respect for human rights and strengthen our economic ties.

As you celebrate another year of independence, we send our wishes for a peaceful and prosperous year.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsEquatorial GuineaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP08-591-000]

                    Take notice that the technical conference scheduled in the above-captioned proceeding for January 28, 2009 is cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date. For further information please contact Anna Fernandez at (202) 502-6682 or e-mail                     *Anna.Fernandez@ferc.gov*.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-2213 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2006048EN.01000401.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-402/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret in Skov Æg v Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S v Jette Mikkelsen, Michael Due Nielsen (1)

1

(Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Liability of the supplier of a defective product)

(2006/C 48/07)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-402/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 26 September 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings between Skov Æg and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and between Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Jette Mikkelsen, Michael Due Nielsen — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász and G. Arestis, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it ruled:

Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as:

| — | precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable, beyond the cases listed exhaustively in Article 3(3) of the directive, for the no-fault liability which the directive establishes and imposes on the producer; |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable, beyond the cases listed exhaustively in Article 3(3) of the directive, for the no-fault liability which the directive establishes and imposes on the producer;

| — | not precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the producer's fault-based liability. |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the producer's fault-based liability.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

1

---
#### James L. BECKTON, and Mary Beckton, his wife, Appellants, v. G. C. BUTLER and Mrs. G. C. Butler, his wife, Appellees.

No. U-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 27, 1974.

Dunbar, Kiser & Dunbar, New Port Rich-ey, for appellants.

Jill Brown and Robert R. Perry, of Evans, Stewart, Perry & Stelogeannis, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment in favor of defendant-owners in this suit seeking specific performance of an alleged contract to sell land is affirmed on authority of Picard v. Burroughs, Fla.App., 1st 1974, 304 So.2d 455, and the cases therein cited, and Petersen v. Brotman, Fla.App. 2nd 1958, 100 So.2d 821.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
§ 416.120 Basis for payment. The basis for payment depends on where the services are furnished. ( a ) *Hospital outpatient department.* Payment is in accordance with part 419 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *ASC* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Payment is based on a prospectively determined rate. This rate covers the cost of services such as supplies, nursing services, equipment, etc., as specified in § 416.61. The rate does not cover physician services or other medical services covered under part 410 of this chapter (for example, X-ray services or laboratory services) which are not directly related to the performance of the surgical procedures. Those services may be billed separately and paid on a reasonable charge basis.
( 2 ) *Single and multiple surgical procedures.* ( i ) If one covered surgical procedure is furnished to a beneficiary in an operative session, payment is based on the prospectively determined rate for that procedure.
( ii ) If more than one surgical procedure is furnished in a single operative session, payment is based on— ( A ) The full rate for the procedure with the highest prospectively determined rate; and
( B ) One half of the prospectively determined rate for each of the other procedures.
( 3 ) *Deductibles and coinsurance.* Part B deductible and coinsurance amounts apply as specified in § 410.152 (a) and (i) of this chapter.
[56 FR 8844, Mar. 1, 1991; 56 FR 23022, May 20, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 68226, Nov. 24, 2006]
§ 415.208 Services of moonlighting residents. ( a ) *Definition.* For purposes of this section, the term *services of moonlighting residents* refers to services that licensed residents perform that are outside the scope of an approved GME program.
( b ) *Services in teaching hospitals.* ( 1 ) The services of residents to inpatients of hospitals in which the residents have their approved GME program are not covered as physician services and are payable under §§ 413.75 through 413.83 regarding direct GME payments.
( 2 ) Services of residents that are not related to their approved GME programs and are performed in an outpatient department or emergency department of a hospital in which they have their training program are covered as physician services and payable under the physician fee schedule if criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section are met. The services of residents that are not related to their approved GME programs and are furnished to inpatients of a hospital in which they have their training program are covered as physician services and payable under the physician fee schedule if criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section are met. The medical record must include documentation to demonstrate in each case that these criteria are satisfied. ( i ) The services are identifiable physician services and meet the conditions for payment of physician services to beneficiaries in providers in § 415.102(a).
( ii ) The resident is fully licensed to practice medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, or podiatry by the State in which the services are performed.
( iii ) The services performed can be separately identified from those services that are required as part of the approved GME program.
( 3 ) If the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met, the services of the moonlighting resident are considered to have been furnished by the individual in his or her capacity as a physician, rather than in the capacity of a resident. The carrier must review the contracts and agreements for these services to ensure compliance with the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
( 4 ) No payment is made for services of a “teaching physician” associated with moonlighting services, and the time spent furnishing these services is not included in the teaching hospital's full-time equivalency count for the indirect GME payment (§ 412.105 of this chapter) and for the direct GME payment (§§ 413.75 through 413.83 of this chapter).
( c ) *Other settings.* Moonlighting services of a licensed resident in an approved GME program furnished outside the scope of that program in a hospital or other setting that does not participate in the approved GME program are payable under the physician fee schedule as set forth in § 415.206(b)(1).
[60 FR 63178, Dec. 8, 1995, as amended at 70 FR 47490, Aug. 12, 2005; 85 FR 19289, Apr. 6, 2020; 85 FR 85037, Dec. 28, 2020]
# C_2005193EN.01002301.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/23

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 31 May 2005

in Case T-272/02, Comune di Napoli v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Construction of an underground rail line in Naples (Italy) - Conclusion of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Fairness - Statement of reasons)

(2005/C 193/35)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-272/02: Comune di Napoli (Italy), represented by M. Merola, C. Tesauro, G. Tarallo and E. Barone, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and A. Aresu, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission notified in a letter of 11 June 2002 to the Italian Ministry of Finance concluding the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Assistance No 850503066) and the implied rejection of an application for correction of the account relating to other financial assistance granted from the ERDF (Assistance No 850503067) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8500
JOHN HERMAN PLATH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID BEASLEY, Governor; MICHAEL B. MOORE, Director, Department of Corrections; SERGEANT FOSTER; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden; SERGEANT JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2985-6-3AK) Submitted: June 20, 1995 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Herman Plath, 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 denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. We affirmed that order. Plath v. Beasley , No. 95-7902 (4th Cir. May 30, 1996) (unpublished). Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of reconsideration, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. We d ispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED