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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 00-20805 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO MEZA-ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-18-1

-------------------- June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Meza-Roman appeals the 87-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. Meza-Roman acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issueNo. 00-20805 -2- 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 490; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Meza-Roman’s argument is foreclosed. Meza-Roman also argues that his indictment does not charge an offense because it fails to allege any general intent on his part. Meza-Roman’s indictment, however, “fairly conveyed that [his] presence was a voluntary act from the allegations that he was deported, removed, and subsequently present without consent of the Attorney General.” See United States v. Berrios-Centeno , ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2001, No. 00-20373), 2001 WL 435494 at *4. Accordingly, his indictment sufficiently alleged the general intent required of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 offenses. See id. at *2-*4.
AFFIRMED.
##### 



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM
20-F/A
 o
    
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
 OR
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 o
    
    SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of event requiring this shell company report
 Commission file number: 000-28508
Flamel Technologies S.A.
 
  Not Applicable  (Translation of Registrants name into English)
 Republic of France  (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 Parc Club du Moulin a Vent
33, avenue du Docteur Georges Levy
69693 Vénissieux Cedex France  (Address of principal executive offices)
  Name of ExchangeTitle of each class
    
    on which RegisteredOrdinary Shares, nominal value 0.122
Euros per share, represented by
American Depositary Shares (as
evidenced by American Depositary
Receipts), each representing one
Ordinary Share
    
    NASDAQ Global Market
      o þ
  o þ
  þ o
  o þ o
  o þ
  o þ




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY
NOTE




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES S.A.(Registrant)/s/
Stephen H. Willard
Stephen H. WillardChief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF EP MEDSYSTEMS, INC.

ProCath Corporation D/B/A EP MedSystems
Cooper Run Executive Park
334 D6 Cooper Road
Berlin, NJ 08009
State of Incorporation:       New Jersey
Business Name:                ProCath Corporation

EP MedSystems UK Ltd.
100 Stierli Court, Suite 107
Mount Arlington, NJ 07856
State of Incorporation:       New Jersey
Business Name:                EP MedSystems, Europe Ltd.

EP MedSystems France S.A.R.L.
12, Avenue du Quebec, Batiment H
Entree 9, SILIC 633
91140 Villebon sur Yvette, France
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 211

               To provide for new program accountability.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 12 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To provide for new program accountability.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Government New Program 
Accountability Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. NEW PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
any submission of recommendations for legislation to the Congress by 
the Secretary or head of any Federal department or agency shall include 
an implementation plan for each new program, project, or activity 
proposed to be authorized in such legislation.
    (b) Contents of the Implementation Plan.--Each implementation plan 
submitted under subsection (a) shall include a description of--
            (1) the resource requirements of the proposed program, 
        project, or activity, including staff and data systems 
        resources;
            (2) the estimated costs of implementation, for the initial 
        year of the proposed program, project, or activity and for the 
        5-year period covered by the most recent budget submitted by 
        the President in accordance with section 1105 of title 31, 
        United States Code;
            (3) the projected impact of the proposed program, project, 
        or activity on the ability of the department or agency to 
        manage the operations of all the programs, projects, and 
        activities carried out by that department or agency, including 
        an analysis of whether new appropriations would be requested or 
        resources would be shifted from other programs, projects, or 
        activities; and
            (4) a proposed implementation schedule, including a start 
        date and a timetable for the promulgation of regulations.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.01



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



CERTIFICATION



I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/ Robert L. Howard-AndersonName:

Robert L. Howard-AndersonTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




I, Howard M.
Bailey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/ Howard M. BaileyName:

Howard M. BaileyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Occam Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Occam Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SHAMEIL DONYEL SMITH

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5334

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 16, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Hulsey, III , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., MAKAR and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

OutSource International of America, Inc., a Florida corporation
OutSource Franchising Inc., a Florida corporation
Capital Staffing Fund, Inc., a Florida corporation
Employees Insurance Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne I, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne II, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne III, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne IV, Inc., a Florida corporation
Synadyne V, Inc., a Florida corporation
OutSource of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation
Staff All, Inc., a Florida corporation
Mass Staff, Inc., a Florida corporation
Employment Consultants, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation
X-tra Help, Inc., a California corporation
Co-Staff, Inc., a California corporation
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 96 to 99, 
revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 764, in Sec.  98.153, at the end of 
paragraph (d) introductory text, the parameter ED of 
Equation O-5 is revised and reinstated to read as follows:

Sec.  98.153  Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
* * * * *
ED = Mass of HFC-23 emitted annually from destruction device 
(metric tons), calculated using Equation O-8 of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-14399 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00307

- CR

ROEL ALVAREZ LOPEZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 981

- 12

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 25, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                  0001108345
<NAME>                          IMPRESO.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
<CURRENCY>                           USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         MAY-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                           180,601
<SECURITIES>                                      11,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,054,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                     235,000
<INVENTORY>                                   23,635,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              30,009,986
<PP&E>                                        17,596,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,881,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                37,742,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         20,822,071
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,263,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  37,742,857
<SALES>                                       17,577,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              17,577,738
<CGS>                                         14,704,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 14,704,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (27,481)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 235,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               339,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  682,719
<INCOME-TAX>                                     203,765
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              478,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     478,954
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .09


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

From: The United States Environmental Protection Agency To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2013 - 0602) Date: October 2014 Subject: Clarification of Docket Datasets in GHG Abatement Measures Technical Support Document Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to make clarifying edits to the table titled Docket Datasets on page 2 - 41 of the GHG Abatement Measures Technical Support Document (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2013 - 0602 - 0437). The EPA has revised the table to clarify the names and descriptions of the data files referenced in the table. Clarification to Docket Datasets table Name Description Dataset related to Chapter 2 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD ( EPA - HQ - OAR 2013 - 0602 - 0238 ) 2002 - 2012 hourly dataset, including data for regres sion analysis and unit year binned results at 10 - 50% difference options

GHG Abatement Measures Hourly Unit Data Column Descriptions ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2013 - 0602 - 0237 ) Description of the data columns in the Dataset related to Chapter 2 of the GHG Abatement Measur es TSD

GHG Abatement Measures Unit Study Population ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2013 - 0602 - 0239 ) Information about units included in the analysis described in the GHG Abatement Measures TSD (see units with “Y” in the “In Study” column )
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 242 V

Filed: July 10, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

ANNA ROOF HARRELSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Mary Lee B riggs, Briggs and Inglese, LLC, Charleston, SC, for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On February 16, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ”) as a result of a n influenza (“ flu ” ) vaccine administered on September 29, 2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 25, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner satisfied the criteria set forth in

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 N ational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

.the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation regarding a

SIRVA Id. at 5

.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001108311
<NAME>                        Central Visions, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Feb-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         80
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 80
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       550
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   80
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,708
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,708)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Vernice G. HOBBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34080.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1962.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Wells Stewart, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDonald, judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, enhanced under Article 63, Vernon’s *837Ann.P.C., by three prior convictions for felonies less than capital, life imprisonment.

The State has confessed error in this case. We agree that the cause must be reversed.

In the absence of any evidence to support the allegation that each succeeding offense was committed after the judgment of conviction had become final in each prior conviction alleged for enhancement, the evidence is insufficient to sustain this conviction. Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 333 S.W.2d 383; Guilliams v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 261 S.W.2d 598; also see (first Rogers case) Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 325 S.W.2d 697.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0

                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

EARNINGS PER SHARE

         We adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 128
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998. SFAS No. 128 replaces the presentation
of primary and fully diluted earnings per share with a presentation of basic
earnings per share and diluted earnings per share, if dilutive shares are
outstanding. Basic earnings per share excludes dilution and is computed by
dividing income or loss available to common stockholders by the weighted-average
number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share
reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other
contracts to issue common stock were converted into common stock, but such
securities or contracts are excluded if their effects would be anti-dilutive.
Pursuant to the requirements of Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 98 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, issued in February 1998, common equivalent
shares which have an anti-dilutive effect on net loss per share are no longer
included in computing net loss per share for the periods presented. All
prior-period loss per share data has been restated in accordance with SFAS No.
128 and SAB No. 98.

         Basic loss per common share was calculated by dividing net loss by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted
loss per share was calculated the same as basic loss per share since we have a
net loss for all periods presented which would make the conversion of securities
or other contracts to common stock anti-dilutive.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                             YEAR ENDED
                                                                              MARCH 31
                                                                         1999          1998
                                                                     ----------     ---------

               <S>                                                 <C>           <C>
               Net Loss                                            (9,270,270)   (3,898,812)

               Loss per common share - basic & diluted                  (1.17)         (.68)

               Number of common shares - basic & diluted            7,903,197     5,708,904

</TABLE>


                                       1