alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2166

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jerry Goodman, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 25, 2011 Filed: August 29, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Goodman, Jr., was charged with faili ng to register as a sex offender, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Goodman pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. The District Court 1 sentenced Goodman to sixty months in prison, below the statutory maximum but above the undisputed advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of thirty to th irty-seven months. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and questioning the reasonableness of the sentence.-2- We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case becau se Goodman’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the r ecord shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiv er would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (describing the circumstances under which the appellate court should enforce an appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an Anders case).
We have independently reviewedthe record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver. We grant counsel leave to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

______________________________
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



| | 1. | this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BT Group plc.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                     |  |                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Date: May 22, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Gavin Patterson
|                   |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Gavin Patterson       
|                   |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Group Chief Executive 
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 22, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Tony Chanmugam 
|                   |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Tony Chanmugam        
|                   |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Group Finance Director
Exhibit 12.1

Statement of Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                         |  | Years Ended June 30,
|---------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|
|
|Interest component of rents              |  | $                   
|Amortization of deferred financing costs |  |                     
|Other financing costs                    |  |                     
|Interest expense, net                    |  |                     
|                                         |  |                     
|Fixed charges                            |  |                     
|Earnings before income taxes             |  |                     
|                                         |  |                     
|Earnings before fixed charges            |  | $                   
|                                         |  |                     
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       |  |                     

---



QuickLinks
# C_2023035EN.01005302.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)

(Case T-623/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Puma - Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 35/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vaillant GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2021 (Case R 1875/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
#### Smiley Vincent KEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 20, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical 
Services, Inc.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division 
(``Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, 
appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 
5, 2018, Fisher Clinical Services, 700A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, PA 
18031-1522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following 
basic class of controlled substance:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psilocybin.............................     7437  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 
clinical trials.

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
 John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-15667 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### John W. MIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-189.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, Vera Winter Lee and Robert M. Haggard, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge.

Appellant, John W. Mims, appeals a life sentence imposed upon him pursuant to a *716judgment for conviction of rape, and assigns as error the admissibility of testimony of one witness on the grounds that it does not come within the purview of similar fact evidence as outlined in Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).

Essential facts are that the prosecuting witness left her work at approximately 2:00 o’clock in the morning and was following a co-worker to the latter’s home. When the two cars stopped at a traffic light, defendant, a 286-lb. Negro man, stopped his bronze car with black top behind the victim, advised her and the co-worker that he was a deputy sheriff and that her tail light was not functioning. The defendant then followed the two women in their respective cars to the home of the co-worker, at which point he forced the victim at gunpoint to get into his car, drove to a secluded wooded area, forced her at gunpoint to undress, and raped her. The controverted testimony was that of a witness who testified that on the same date at approximately 1:30 a. m. as she was walking to her car she saw a two-toned bronze Buick pull into the parking lot. She identified the defendant and testified that he got out of his car with a gun, attempted to open her locked door on the driver’s side and motioned with the gun for her to get out. She was frightened and sped away. Other evidence which was not objected to was that of a witness who testified that three weeks prior to the instant offense, the defendant while driving the same car at about the same time of night in the same area, forced her at gunpoint to get into his car and that he transported her to a wooded spot and sexually assaulted her.

We hold that the facts in this case clearly fall within the purview of Williams v. State, supra. The judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1914

HA SIM,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-485-847)

Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 16, 2007

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ha Sim, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, M. Jocelyn Lopez

Wright, Tracey Wood, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ha Sim, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his

requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed

the administrative record and the Board’s decision and find that

substantial evidence supports the ruling that Sim failed to

establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution, as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is

on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, as Sim

cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish

his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).

Although Sim did not present an argument concerning the

denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture to the

Board, the Board found that the record provided no basis for

finding that Sim demonstrated eligibility for protection under the

Convention. Even assuming we have jurisdiction to consider this
- 3 -

claim, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Gandziami-Mickhou v.

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Asika v.

Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004)), we agree with the

Board as to its merits. 

We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1206 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 351

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1206

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

             January 28 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 351
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1206

  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Nunn) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                    on Environment and Public Works

             January 28 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

               Reported by Mr. Baucus, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham, 
Massachusetts, and known as the Waltham Federal Center, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frederick C. 
Murphy Federal Center''.
```
#### Lola E. TURNER, Appellant, v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1978.

Wolf son, Appel & Maram and Anthony J. Brown, Miami, for appellant.

Batchelor, Brodnax, Guthrie & Primm and Robert A.- Freyer, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Griffin v. Stonewall Insurance Co.,*346 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
OMB Control Number: 2060-0482

Expiration Date: 10/31/11 

EPA Form # 5900-145, Revised 5/11

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM

CLASS I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

METHYL BROMIDE

SECOND-PARTY DESTRUCTION ANNUAL REPORT

(40 CFR 82.13)

SECTION 1 COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Date of Submission 1.2 Year to Which This Report Applies

1.3 Original Submittal Re-submittal

1.4 Have you submitted a one-time destruction report to EPA (per 40 CFR 82.13)? Yes No

1.5 Have you submitted a destruction verification to the producer or importer (per 40 

CFR 82.13)? Yes No

1.6 Company Information

Company Name 

 

Street Address 

 

 City State Zip Code 

1.7 Company Contact Identification

Reporting Company Contact Person Phone Number Fax Number

E-mail Address 

1.8 Destruction Total

Second-Party Destruction of Methyl Bromide (kg): 

1.9 Signature of Reporting Company Representative

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached 

documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the 

submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

Name 

Title 

Signature Date 

SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO: For U.S. Postal Service:

Tracking System Program Manager

Stratospheric Protection Division

U.S. EPA (6205J)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

For Private Courier:

Tracking System Program Manager

Stratospheric Protection Division

U.S. EPA (6205J)

1310 L Street, NW; 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

A company may assert a claim of confidentiality for information submitted in this form by clearly marking that information as confidential. Such information 

shall be treated in accordance with EPA’s procedures for information claimed as confidential at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, and will only be disclosed by the 

means set forth in the subpart. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the report when it is received by EPA, it may be made public without further notice 

to the company (40 CFR 2.203).

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments on the 

Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, 

including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this 

address.
#### ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. et al., Appellants, v. Harwell G. DAVIS, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.*

No. 8323.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1937.

For opinion in District Court, see 17 F.Supp. 529.

Forney Johnston, Jos. F. Johnston, and Borden Burr, all of Birmingham, Ala., and Niel P. Sterne, of Anniston, Ala., for appellants.

J. P. Jackson, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

*

Writ of certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 674, 81 L.Ed. -.

PER CURIAM.

A motion has been submitted to stay, pending appeal, proceedings to enforce the tax on employers of eight or more laid by title 9 of the Social Security Act, § 901 et seq. (42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.). For the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in Beeland Wholesale Company et al. v. Davis, Collector (C.C.A.) 88 F.(2d) 447, the motion is denied.
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Numbers at a Glance - March 2022

(As of March 31, 2022)

**Topics on this page:**
                          - Status of All Privacy Rule Complaints
                          - Total Investigated Resolutions
                          - Investigated Resolutions

----

** Referrals to DOJ - 1,373*

Back to Top

----

Back to Top

----

This bar graph shows a comparison of the complaints that OCR has investigated and resolved by calendar year according to the type of closure, and includes a bar reflecting the total closures.  The first bar in the group of three per year represents the complaints closed in which there was no violation, the second in which there was corrective action, and the third reflects the total closures.

 

Back to Top

Content last reviewed May 16, 2022
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 SurgiCare, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith G. LeBlanc,
Chief Executive 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





Keith G. LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer(1)
April 14, 2003





(1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SurgiCare, Inc. and will be retained by SurgiCare, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.