alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

     I, Paul H. Palmer, Chief Financial Officer of Sierra Health Services, Inc. certify that:

     1.	     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health Services, Inc.;

     2.	     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.	     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.	     The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

	          a)	     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

	          b)	     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

	          c)	     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.	     The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	          a)	     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

	          b)	     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 5, 2004	

  
By: /s/ Paul H. Palmer
#### Shelby Preston LANGSTON, Petitioner, v. Martha Henderson LANGSTON, Respondent.

No. 42130.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 257 So.2d 625.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
# C_2023216EN.01001601.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — VW v SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl and Legea Srl v VW, SW, CQ, ET

(Case C-686/21, (1) Legea)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade mark law - Directive 89/104/EEC - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor - Trade mark belonging to two or more persons - Conditions on majority required between joint proprietors for granting and terminating a licence of their trade mark)

(2023/C 216/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VW, Legea Srl

Defendants: SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl, VW

Operative part of the judgment

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

must be interpreted as meaning that the question of whether the grant or the termination of a licence to use a national trade mark or an EU trade mark held in joint proprietorship requires a unanimous decision by the joint proprietors or a decision by a majority of them comes within the scope of the applicable national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15357]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Newborn Screening Translational 
Research Network (NBSTRN) August 13, 2018.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301) 435-6680, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#493a2228272d283a28092428202567272021672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b68707a757f7a687a5b767a727735757273357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 13, 2018.
Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15357 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2023035EN.01005102.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert)

(Case T-487/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert - Tactile position mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Scope of the law - Court acting of its own motion - Examination of distinctive character by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Sign not capable of constituting an EU mark - Absence of a precise and self-contained graphic representation of the tactile impression produced by the sign - Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 35/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Kaufmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
# C_2022463EN.01003001.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — SV v EIB

(Case T-311/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Performance appraisal - Promotion - Administrative review - Special procedure applicable to appraisal decisions - Rule of correspondence between the administrative review and the subsequent application - Intensity of the review - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 463/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant, seeks, first, annulment of his 2019 Performance Document and of the subsequent decisions adopted in the context of the special procedure for administrative review applicable to the appraisal decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 22, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0093. LG CHEM, LTD. v. CAMERON LEMMERMAN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 19A4162
# C_2023035EN.01000902.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — DOMUS-Software-AG v Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

(Case C-370/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Compensation for recovery costs incurred by the creditor due to late payment by the debtor - Article 6 - Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 - Several late payments for periodic supplies of goods or services under a single contract)

(2023/C 35/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DOMUS-Software-AG

Defendant: Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

where a single contract provides for periodic deliveries of goods or provision of services, each requiring payment within a specified period, the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 by way of compensation for recovery costs is payable to the creditor for each late payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUILLERMO HOLGUIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-1625

D.C. No. 3:22-cr-01987-AJB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. 

Guillermo Holguin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1625

Holguin contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the 

district court gave excessive weight to the Guidelines range and insufficient 

consideration to the mitigating factors, including his acceptance of responsibility,

his personal and family circumstances, and the fact that his Guidelines range was 

enhanced as a result of his voluntary admission that he possessed more 

methamphetamine than was seized by authorities. The district court did not abuse 

its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The belowGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the serious nature and 

circumstances of the offense and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 553 U.S. 

at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 

2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the 

discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, contrary to Holguin’s contention, the 

record reflects that the district court thoroughly considered his mitigating 

arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 

992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021391EN.01001601.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2021 — W O, J L v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-480/21)

(2021/C 391/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W O, J L

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM (1) and affirmed in L and P (2) where there is a real risk that the appellants will stand trial before courts which are not established by law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM (1) and affirmed in L and P (2) where there is a real risk that the appellants will stand trial before courts which are not established by law?

| 2. | Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM and affirmed in L and P where a person seeking to challenge a request under an EAW cannot meet that test by reason of the fact that it is not possible at that point in time to establish the composition of the courts before which they will be tried by reason of the manner in which cases are randomly allocated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM and affirmed in L and P where a person seeking to challenge a request under an EAW cannot meet that test by reason of the fact that it is not possible at that point in time to establish the composition of the courts before which they will be tried by reason of the manner in which cases are randomly allocated?

| 3. | Does the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the validity of the appointment of judges in Poland, in circumstances where it is apparent that the appellants cannot at this point in time establish that the courts before which they will be tried will be composed of judges not validly appointed, amount to a breach of the essence of the right to a fair trial requiring the executing state to refuse the surrender of the appellants? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the validity of the appointment of judges in Poland, in circumstances where it is apparent that the appellants cannot at this point in time establish that the courts before which they will be tried will be composed of judges not validly appointed, amount to a breach of the essence of the right to a fair trial requiring the executing state to refuse the surrender of the appellants?

---

(1)  Case C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

(2)  Cases C-354/20 PPU and C-412/20 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1033.

---
#### KOHLMEYER AND COMPANY v. Robert P. SOBERT.

No. 53427.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Robert P. Sobert applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 273 So.2d 884.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### TOWSLEY v. NATIONAL BRANDS, INC.

No. 38744.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 495.
Order entered September 9, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00630
- CV TRENT S. GRIFFIN, Appellant

V.
AMERICAN ZURICH INSU RANCE COMPANY, ET AL ., Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 05893



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 29, 2019 “Motion Relating to Informalities.” In the motion, appellant asserts objections to actions taken in the trial court and asks that we sustain those objections. We DENY the motion. Appellant’s brief on the merits remains due October 14, 2019 . The requirements for an appellant’s brief are set forth in rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### In re ESTATE of Faye DOBKIN, Deceased. Minerva KOSBIE et al., Petitioners, v. MIAMI BEACH FIRST NATIONAL BANK and Gregory B. Hoppenstand, Respondents.

No. 41033.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 11


                      THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER UNIT
                         (in thousands, except per unit)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    Years Ended December 31,
                                                                        -------------------------------------------------
Partnership Units                                                           1999               1998              1997
                                                                        ------------        -----------        ----------
<S>                                                                     <C>                 <C>                <C>
   Average number of units outstanding during the period                    31,388             33,986             34,520

   Net units issuable in connection with dilutive options based upon
     use of the treasury stock method                                          280                390                230
                                                                          --------            -------            -------
    Average number of primary units                                         31,668             34,376             34,750
                                                                          --------            -------            -------
Net income                                                                $ 90,392            $64,080            $44,493
                                                                          --------            -------            -------
Net income per unit                                                         $ 2.88            $  1.89            $  1.29
                                                                          --------            -------            -------


Net income per unit - assuming dilution                                     $ 2.85            $  1.86            $  1.28
                                                                          --------            -------            -------
</TABLE>