alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Nicalea R. GONZALEZ, as Natural Guardian and Legal Guardian of the property for her daughter, Amora Gonzalez, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Agency FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0486

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
1 

### Moran, Nicole

From: Moran, Nicole Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:18 PM To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke Cc: Toensing, Don Subject: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan Attachments: Comment Letter KS Draft SWMP.08062015.pdf

Bill, Enclosed is an electronic copy of EPA’s Comment Let ter for the State of Kansas Draft Coal Combustion R esiduals Part 256 Plan submittal. The official letter is in the mail . Please make note that there were a few changes t o the checklist that you received yesterday following OGC’s review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Don Toensing. Thanks, Nicole

Nicole Moran US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Air and Waste Management Division Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219 913-551-7641 (phone) moran.nicole@epa.gov
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 on Form 10-K of PAREXEL International
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Josef H. von Rickenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: September 8, 2005                /s/ Josef H. von Rickenbach
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Josef H. von Rickenbach
                                        Chairman of the Board and
                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PAREXEL International Corporation and will be retained by PAREXEL
International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
William SHROYER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 05, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Steve WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aron ROTMAN, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16925

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Steve Wilhelm, Pro Se

Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*570MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Steve Wilhelm appeals pro se from, the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rotman because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rot-man was deliberately indifferent by causing a delay in Wilhelm’s hernia treatment. *See Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference requires showing of harm “caused by” the alleged indifference); *Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury); *McGuckin v. Smith,*974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”), *overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Wilhelm’s request for entry of default judgment, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Kelly RANDLE; Fred Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LNV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56097

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*588Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 3, 2017

Kelly Randle, Pro Se

Fred Mitchell, Pro Se

Lindsey Kress, Regina J. McClendon, Attorneys, Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kelly Randle and Fred Mitchell appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) because plaintiffs failed to show grounds for relief. *See id.*at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, LNV waived defects in service and consented to the district court’s jurisdiction by removing this action to the district court. *See Jackson v. Hayakawa,*682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Jurisdiction attaches if a defendant makes a voluntary general appearance, as by filing an answer through an attorney.” (citations omitted)). Judicial estoppel did not apply because LNV’s position taken earlier in litigation that service was not properly effected and its later decision to waive proper service by making a general appearance are not inconsistent. *See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,128,999
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    308,678 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      312,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0 
<PP&E>                                        14,319,392 
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19,439,632 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    10,044,785 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19,439,632 
<SALES>                                          235,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,977,292
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,464,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 140,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 125,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               332,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  513,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              513,226 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     513,226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       3.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       3.52
        


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1322 

To require an annual fiscal state of the union, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. HERN, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. BANKS, Mr. 

PERRY, and Mr. JACKSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require an annual fiscal state of the union, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fiscal State of the 

5 Union Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FISCAL STATE OF THE UNION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 days (excluding 

8 Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) after the date on which 

9 the Secretary of the Treasury submits to Congress the au10 dited financial statement required under paragraph (1) of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1322 IH

1 section 331(e) of title 31, United States Code, on a date 

2 agreed upon by Congress and the Comptroller General of 

3 the United States, the two Houses of Congress shall as4 semble in the Hall of the House of Representatives to re5 ceive a presentation from the Vice President and the lead6 er of the House of Representatives of the opposite party 

7 of the Vice President reviewing the findings of the audit 

8 required under paragraph (2) of such section and pro9 viding, with respect to the information included by the 

10 Secretary in the report accompanying such audited finan11 cial statement, an analysis of the financial position and 

12 condition of the Federal Government, including financial 

13 measures (such as the net operating cost, income, budget 

14 deficits, or budget surpluses) and sustainability measures 

15 (such as the long-term fiscal projection or social insurance 

16 projection) described in such report. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirement under sub18 section (a) shall apply with respect to any audited finan19 cial statement submitted on or after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yulian CARRILLO-TAMAYO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7155

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Yulian Carrillo-Tamayo, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yulian Carrillo-Tamayo (Tamayo) appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a sentence reduction under Amendments 750, 759, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s rulings. The mandate rule forecloses Tamayo’s challenge to the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief under Amendment 782. *See Doe v. Chao,*511 F.3d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing the rule). We therefore affirm this ruling. We also affirm the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief under Amendments 750 and 759 for the reasons stated by that court. *United States v. Carillo-Tamayo,*No. 5:12-cr-00563-MBS-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### IN RE: Darron TILLISON, Petitioner.

No. 16-1735

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Darron Tillison, Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darron Tillison petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking relief from the civil judgment obtained against him and his employer. A writ of prohibition “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy” that is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Id.

We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Tillison has not made the requisite showing for issuance of the writ. Accordingly, we deny the writ of prohibition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Brion Umidi, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGenBiologics, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004         By:  /s/ BRION UMIDI    Brion Umidi    *Chief Financial Officer*
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1351 

To establish a strategic uranium reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Ms. CHENEY, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

BURGESS, and Mr. WALBERG) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To establish a strategic uranium reserve. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nuclear Prosperity and 

5 Security Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRATEGIC URANIUM RESERVE. 

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after 

9 the date of enactment of this section and subject to 

10 the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of 

11 Energy shall establish and operate a uranium reVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Mar 22, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1351.IH H1351

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1351 IH

1 serve (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Reserve’’) 

2 in accordance with this section. 

3 (2) OTHER AUTHORITY.—In establishing and 

4 operating the Reserve, the Secretary of Energy shall 

5 use the authority granted to the Secretary of Energy 

6 under sections 53, 63, and 161 g. of the Atomic En7 ergy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, and 

8 2201(g)). 

9 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Reserve are— 

10 (1) to ensure the availability of uranium mined 

11 in the United States in the event of a market dis12 ruption; and 

13 (2) to support strategic fuel cycle capabilities in 

14 the United States. 

15 (c) EXCLUSION.—The Secretary shall exclude ura16 nium that is mined in the United States by an entity that 

17 is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian 

18 Federation or the People’s Republic of China or is incor19 porated in the Russian Federation or the People’s Repub20 lic of China from the reserve. 

21 (d) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.—Not later than 90 

22 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec23 retary of Energy shall publish a request for information 

24 that shall be used by the Secretary of Energy to evalu25 ate— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1351 IH

1 (1) how to operate and manage the Reserve; 

2 (2) how to acquire uranium for the Reserve, in3 cluding the method of transportation and storage; 

4 and 

5 (3) the quantity and form of uranium to ac6 quire for the Reserve. 

7 (e) BUDGET REQUEST.—For each fiscal year begin8 ning after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec9 retary of Energy shall include in the budget materials sub10 mitted in support of the budget of the President (sub11 mitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 

12 United States Code)— 

13 (1) a request for amounts for the acquisition, 

14 transportation, or storage of uranium in the Re15 serve; or 

16 (2) if such request is not included, an expla17 nation for why such amounts are not requested. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
---

EXHIBIT 31.2




CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Brion D. Umidi, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the “registrant”);





2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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 officers 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: August 11, 2009





By:
/s/ Brion D. UmidiName:
Brion D. UmidiTitle:
Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer