alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-K of
MUZAK LLC and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001085321
<NAME>                        MUZAK LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2,275
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       42,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,683
<INVENTORY>                                         12,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    56,065
<PP&E>                                             113,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (18,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     494,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               91,318
<BONDS>                                            115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           110,423
<OTHER-SE>                                          26,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       494,274
<SALES>                                            130,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   130,016
<CGS>                                               48,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       48,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    77,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1,185
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (24,918)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (22,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (439)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (21,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          6
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (21,736)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6364 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6364

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to maintain certain 
    telehealth flexibilities relating to provider privacy under the 
                           Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2023

 Mr. Balderson (for himself, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. 
 Johnson of Ohio, and Mr. Carey) introduced the following bill; which 
 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 
  to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to maintain certain 
    telehealth flexibilities relating to provider privacy under the 
                           Medicare program.

    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 ``Medicare Telehealth Privacy Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. MAINTAINING CERTAIN TELEHEALTH FLEXIBILITIES RELATING TO 
              PROVIDER PRIVACY UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Ensuring physician and practitioner privacy.--In the 
        case of a physician or practitioner who elects to furnish 
        telehealth services at a distant site that is the home of such 
        physician or practitioner, if the Secretary requires such 
        physician or practitioner to include the address of such home 
        on any enrollment form of such physician or practitioner under 
        this title (or requires such physician or practitioner to bill 
        for such services using such address), the Secretary may not 
        make such address available to the public in any manner.''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 97-40552 Summary Calendar

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEWAYNE GRAYER, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6-96-CR-46-1

_________________________________________________________________ December 4, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * DeWayne Grayer appeals his sentence for possession with intent
to distri bute and distribution of cocaine base pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that the district court attributed an incorrect quantity of drugs to him by erroneously adopting the facts as stated in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and failing to resolve factual issues. He further argues that the dist rict court erroneously increased his offense level for the possession of a firearm.-2-

T he district court did not err as to the quantity of drugs attributable to Grayer. S ee United States v. Puig-Infante , 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994). The firearms enhancement is similarly
not erroneou s. S ee United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1993).
A F F I R M E D.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-960]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Myonex Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **Supplemental Information**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 28, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 28, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 10, 2021, Myonex Inc., 100 Progress Drive, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleAmphetamine
1100
IILisdexamfetamine
1205
IIMethylphenidate
1724
IINabilone
7379
IIOxycodone
9143
IIHydromorphone
9150
IIHydrocodone
9193
IIMorphine
9300
IIOxymorphone
9652
IIFentanyl
9801
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for clinical trials, research, and analytical purposes. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-03903 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### In the Matter of Joseph S. et al., Respondents, v Michelle R.F., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 722]

*447Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J), entered on or about February 14, 2002, which, after a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, awarded custody of the subject child to the petitioning paternal grandparents, under continuing supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After having found that there existed sufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances due to the mother’s inadequate guardianship and supervision, the court properly considered the child’s best interests in the context of this custody proceeding *(Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543 [1976]). The Family Court’s ruling that the best interests of the child dictated award of custody to petitioners, who have provided a loving and stable home for her, and in whose home she is flourishing, was supported by the requisite fair preponderance of the evidence *(see Matter of Shaka Efion C.,*207 AD2d 740 [1994]; *Matter of Gerald M.,*112 AD2d 6 [1985]).

Respondent, who has been granted biweekly supervised visitation, was found to have left the child unsupervised in a home in which four weapons, at least two of which were loaded, were present; she has also failed to complete a prescribed program of counseling. Contrary to her assertions, there is no evidence in the record that petitioners interfered in the parental relationship *(compare Matter of Brittni K.,*297 AD2d 236 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
EX PARTE C.J.

1160039 (2150654)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>










                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial Officer,
Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: August 5, 2004

/s/ John L. Higgins
------------------------------------------------------
John L. Higgins
Executive Vice President, Finance and
Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Dane BOYKIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41096 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Milton Andrew Stover, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Larry Dane Boykin, Jr., Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Larry Dane Boykin, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Boy-kin has filed a response, but he did not challenge the validity of his appeal waiver. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Boykin’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Felipe GALARZA-GALLEGOS, aka Felipe Gallegos, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71009

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa Damiano, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S, Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Felipe Galarza-Gallegos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Galarza-Gallegos’s untimely motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Galarza-Gallegos failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, *see Toufighi,*538 F.3d at 996; *see Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution “too speculative”). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Galarza-Gallegos’s family social group contention.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1 The Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He is succeeded by the

Hon. Pasco M. Boman II.

 2 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

For The Eighth Circuit

______________

Nos. 97-3582/97-3907

______________

Walz Masonry, Inc., *

*

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the

National 

* Labor Relations

Board

v. *

* 

[UNPUBLISHED]

* 

National Labor Relations Board, *

*

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. *

*

 

__________________

 Submitted:

April 16, 1998 

 

 Filed: May 4, 1998

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit 1

Judge, and PRATT , District Judge. 2

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Walz Masonry, Inc., (Walz) appeals the final decision

of the National Labor
-3-

Relations Board (Board) finding that Walz committed

unfair labor practices. The Board cross-appeals seeking

an order of enforcement. After carefully reviewing the

record and the briefs of the parties, we find the Board’s

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole, affirm the Board’s decision, and grant

the Board’s request for enforcement. 

As we stated in Pace Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 118

F3d 585, 590 (8th Cir. 1997):

We afford “great deference to the

Board’s affirmation of the ALJ’s

findings.” Town & Country Elec. Inc. v.

NLRB, 106 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1997).

The Board’s order will be enforced “if

the Board has correctly applied the law

and its factual findings are supported

by substantial evidence on the record as

a whole, even if we might have reached

a different decision had the matter been

before us de novo.” Id. Although in

the past we have applied a “shock the

conscience” standard of review to an

ALJ’s credibility determinations, we

have recently indicated a preference for

considering credibility determinations

“with the rest of the NLRB’s factual

findings under the general substantial

evidence test derived from Universal

Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71

S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).” Id.

We conclude that the record reveals that the Board’s

findings and its credibility determinations are supported

by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the Board

on Walz’s appeal and grant the Board’s request for

enforcement.
-4-

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A true copy.
-5-

 Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Martin FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 74-2647

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1975.

*445Oscar J. Pena, Laredo, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., Edward B. McDonough, Jr., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Foster was convicted of conspiring to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute that substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Foster contends that the search of a van belonging to and driven by a co-conspirator, one Brunson, was illegal and that his own conviction must be reversed on that basis. Unfortunately for appellant, he was not present at the search, he was not charged with an offense which includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the search and seizure, and he did not have a cognizable proprietary interest in either the premises searched or the evidence seized. In a word, Foster has no standing to contest the search of Brunson’s vehicle. Brown v. United States, 1973, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208; United States v. Hunt, 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 931; United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 295. Foster also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, that he should have been tried in his home state of Indiana instead of in Texas, that the Government wrongfully introduced prior crime evidence at trial, and that the Government and the trial judge conducted themselves in such a manner as to deny appellant a fair trial. There is no merit in any of these claims. The conviction is

Affirmed.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 124TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 20th 

day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Denise Gail Dooley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00240-CR

Trial Court No. 42348-B

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by (1) deleting the attorney 

fees incurred by appointed counsel in the amount of $706.50 from the judgment, (2) replacing a 

plea of “not true” to “true” as the plea to the motion to adjudicate, and (3) identifying the offense 

for which Dooley was convicted as “fraud,” and removing “fraudulent possession controlled 

substance/persecription [sic]” as the offense for which she was convicted. As modified, the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Denise Gail Dooley, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 16th day of September, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
#### Lillian E. Rodriguez, Appellant, *v.*724 Ninth Avenue Corporation, Respondent.

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*723
      *Irwin Isaacs*for appellant.

*Mordecai Goldberg*and *Irving Segal*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.