alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8051** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. HUGH EPPS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00420

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : March 27 , 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Hugh Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hugh Epps seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion for a writ of error coram nobis as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S . 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right
. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Epps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Epps’ motion for a transcript at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe Epps’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder wo uld have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ) (2012)
. Epps’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and a rgument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### Library of Congress

###### Copyright Office

          - [Docket No. 2007-1]

## Correction

                    In the                     **FEDERAL REGISTER**                     of April 16, 2007, in Docket No. 2007-1, Section 109 Report to Congress, on page 19039, in the second column, correct the “Dates” caption by removing “April 16, 2007.”                

Dated: April 18, 2007.

Tanya Sandros,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E7-7731 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410-30-S
# Official Journal C 45A/24 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 45A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5224 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 45A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5224 February 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| 2009/C 045A/01 | Vacancy notice concerning a post of Director (M/F) in the Directorate for Human Resources and Internal Services (DRH) — Publication pursuant to Article 29(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Economic and Social Committee

2009/C 045A/01

Vacancy notice concerning a post of Director (M/F) in the Directorate for Human Resources and Internal Services (DRH) — Publication pursuant to Article 29(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## Questions from Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

1. It appears Appendix 7 is based on 2012 eGRID data. Are the eGRID files available on EPA’s website? The most recent data on EPA’s eGRID page is for 2010. We have been told that the sum ofunit level data doesn’t match that set forth in the state goals computation spreadsheet. 2. What does the column titled “Useful Thermal Output (UTO) = “Other” represent? 3. What is the difference between the “sum of electric generation” and “sum of net energy output” columns? The net energy output figures are higher.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN A. TOTH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1788

[ August 17, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura Sellers Johnson

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2012

- CF

- 011260

- A

.
John A. Toth, Crawfordville, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Organization PersonContacted Date Response Transport Canada Richard Topham 01/28/10 No Objection.

613-952-4357 Bombardier Andrew Shenouda 01/26/10 Sent Email / supported by providing

416~375-3807 requested documentation. x33807 National Business Elias Coni 01/25/10 LeftMessage. Aircraft (202)783-9000 Association (NBAA)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10135

Summary Calendar

JAMES DOHERTY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DUANE NELLIS, in his Official Capacity as President of Texas Tech 

University; TEDD MITCHELL, in his Official Capacity as President of Texas 

Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine; SIMON 

WILLIAMS, in his Official Capacity as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; 

RONALD SEACRIST, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Texas Tech 

University Police Department; KEVIN WILLIAMS, in his Official Capacity 

as Associate General Counsel of Texas Tech University Health Sciences 

Center; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 

HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-155

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

January 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10135 Document: 00513332336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2016
No. 15-10135

2

James Doherty appeals the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of federal 

and Texas state law claims stemming from his alleged wrongful dismissal from 

the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (“TTUHSC”) School of 

Medicine. 

Our thorough review of the briefs in this matter, the pertinent parts of 

the record, and the applicable law reveals no error. The district court properly

held that Doherty failed to state any plausible claim of a substantive or 

procedural due process violation under either the United States or Texas 

constitutions. The district court similarly did not err in its determination that 

Doherty’s remaining claims - including his unlawful taking claim, his 

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 claims, and 

his conspiracy claim - warranted dismissal for their collective failure to allege 

a plausible right to relief. 

We, therefore, affirm the district court’s dismissal of all claims asserted 

by Doherty. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-10135 Document: 00513332336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2016
# C_2008229EN.01002301.xml

| 6.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5148 — Deutsche Telekom/OTE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 229/12)

| 1. | On 28 August 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’, Germany) acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Hellenic Telecommunications Organisation SA (‘OTE’, Greece) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 28 August 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’, Germany) acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Hellenic Telecommunications Organisation SA (‘OTE’, Greece) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Deutsche Telekom: telecommunications services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Deutsche Telekom: telecommunications services,

| — | for OTE: telecommunications services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for OTE: telecommunications services.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5148 — Deutsche Telekom/OTE, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5148 — Deutsche Telekom/OTE, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                                                            TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
                                                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                                    (IN THOUSANDS)


                                                                    12 Months Ended
                                                                    ---------------
                                             June 30,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,
                                               2000       1999       1998       1997       1996       1995
                                             -------    -------    -------    -------    -------    --------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>

FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest on Long-Term Debt                 $67,744    $66,836    $72,672    $66,247    $59,836    $69,174
  Other Interest (1)                         $11,738    $13,081    $13,207    $ 9,640    $11,721    $ 9,113
  Interest on Capital Lease Obligations (2)  $83,246    $82,414    $81,823    $83,019    $84,383    $83,986
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                         $162,728   $162,331   $167,702   $158,906   $155,940   $162,273



NET INCOME                                   $79,741    $73,475    $41,676    $83,572   $120,852    $54,905

LESS:
  Extraordinary Income - Net of Tax          $22,597    $22,597    $0         $0         $0         $0
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------    --------
NET INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS        $57,144    $50,878    $41,676    $83,572   $120,852    $54,905

ADD (DEDUCT):
  Income Taxes - Operating Expense           $13,751    $18,268    $18,372    $19,297     $9,795     $8,920
  Income Taxes - Other                        $5,637     $4,082     ($ 794)  ($41,401)  ($91,950)  ($29,356)
  Total Fixed Charges                       $162,728   $162,331   $167,702   $158,906   $155,940   $162,273
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
TOTAL EARNINGS BEFORE TAXES
AND FIXED CHARGES                           $239,260   $235,559   $226,956   $220,374   $194,637   $196,742



RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES             1.470      1.451      1.353      1.387      1.248      1.212




(1)  Excludes recognition of Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used During Construction.

(2)  Capital Lease Interest Paid from Statement of Cash Flows.


</TABLE>


<PAGE>

































<PAGE>
Exhibit 35.5



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old
Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-590M
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 10, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2017



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
EX-4.3




 Exhibit 4.3 

CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTICATION 

OF 
 SOCIAL CAPITAL
SUVRETTA HOLDINGS CORP. I 
  
  

Pursuant to Sections 103 and 388 of the General 

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 
  

 
 Social Capital
Suvretta Holdings Corp. I, a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by its shares (the “Corporation”), which intends to domesticate as a Delaware corporation pursuant to this Certificate of Domestication, does hereby certify to the
following facts relating to the domestication of the Corporation in the State of Delaware: 
 1. The Corporation was originally incorporated
on the 25th day of February, 2021 under the laws of the Cayman Islands. 
 2. The name
of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is Social Capital Suvretta Holdings Corp. I. 
 3.
The name of the Corporation as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation is Akili, Inc. 
 4. The jurisdiction that constituted the
seat, siege social or principal place of business or central administration of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is the Cayman Islands. 

5. The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be,
governing the internal affairs of the Corporation and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate. 











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Domestication to
be executed in its name this [•] day of [•], 2022. 
  

			
	SOCIAL CAPITAL SUVRETTA HOLDINGS CORP. I
		
	By:	 	  

		 	Name: Chamath Palihapitiya
		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer


 [Signature Page to Certificate of Domestication]
#### Palumbo *v.*Campo, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Automobiles—Accident *while driving guest*— *Injuries to*— Recovery.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that the plaintiff was injured while riding in an automobile driven by the defendant. Evidence was produced that while the machine was proceeding at the rate of forty-five miles an hour the defendant asked for a cigar, which the plaintiff handed to him, and that in taking it the defendant removed his hands from the steering wheel, causing the accident. This was denied by the defendant, who claimed that he had been blinded by lights of an approaching machine.

*Held,*the case was for the jury and verdict for plaintiff will be sustained.

Argued November 13,1924.

Appeal, No. 219, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1922, No. 2288, in case of Ambrogio Palumbo v. Frank Campo.

Before Orlad y, P. J., Porter, *441Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Stern, P. J.

From the record it appeared that the plaintiff, who was injured, was riding in an automobile as the guest of the defendant. Evidence was produced that when the machine was going at the rate of about forty to forty-five miles an hour the plaintiff was asked by the defendant for a cigar, which the former handed to him. When the defendant was about to light the cigar he took his hands from the wheel of the machine and it crashed into a telegraph pole, injuring the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he asked for a cigar and testified that he was blinded by the lights of an approaching automobile.

Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $500 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was, among others, the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*Raymond A. White, Jr.,*and with him *Maurice W. Sloan,*for appellant.

The plaintiff as a guest of the driver was equally responsible with him for the accident: Renn v. Tone, 273 Pa. 10; Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 265 Pa. 282; Hardie v. Barret, 257 Pa. 42.

*I. G. Gordon Forster,*for appellee.

The plaintiff and the defendant having embarked on a common enterprise for the benefit or pleasure of both parties, the defendant was required to exercise ordinary diligence: Cody v. Venzie, 263 Pa. 541; Goodman v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 167 Pa. 332; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 62 Pa. 353; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Hoag v. R. R. Co., 85 Pa. 293.

*442February 27, 1925:

Per Curiam,

Every phase of this case was fully considered in the court below, and all debatable questions were submitted to the jury in a charge by the learned judge that is free from error. It was clearly a case for the jury, and there could be no doubt as to the law appertaining to the facts and the duty of the jury in disposing of them.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 43072.

#### Protest 795845-G/10349 of Paul Gelpi & Sons, Inc. (New Orleans).

*374Opinon by

Keefe, J.

It was established that the internal revenue tax was imposed on 95 gallons of rum which were short shipped or lost through breakage prior to withdrawal. The protest was accordingly sustained to that extent.
# C_2016279EN.01000801.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/8

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-555/15) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Physiotherapy - Osteopathy)

(2016/C 279/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a physiotherapist who, in the context of his professional health activity, uses, either indistinctly or complementarily, both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy must be exempt from value added tax not only with regard to the former therapies, but also with regard to the latter, where the exclusion of the therapies characteristic of osteopathy from the exercise of paramedical professions for the purposes of an exemption from value added tax exceeds the scope of the discretion granted to Member States by that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

1

---