alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                                   SCHEDULE F

                        Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc.

                Form of Financial Information and Operating Data
               of the Pledged Subsidiaries and the Joint Ventures

Data presented for the quarter ended:                           12/31/98

                                    Unaudited

                                                                 Total
FINANCIAL DATA (dollars in thousands)(a):
Total Revenue                                               $     11,388.0
Total Capital Expenditures                                  $     13,616.1
Total EBITDA                                                $      1,312.9

 Gross Property, Plant & Equipment                          $    183,786.0

STATISTICAL DATA(b):
As of December 31, 1998:
Networks in Operation:
Route Miles                                                          3,149
Fiber Miles                                                        143,433
Buildings connected                                                    838
LEC-COs collocated                                                      54
Voice Grade Equivalent Circuits                                    528,864
Access Lines Sold                                                   60,873
Access Lines Installed                                              48,363

(a) Financial Data represents 100% of the operations of all entities except
    Hyperion of Florida, which is reflected at Hyperion's ownership in the
    Jacksonville network, which is 20%.
(b) Statistical Data represents 100% of operating data for all entities
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40062

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alejandro De La Torre, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-1639-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alejandro De La Torre pleaded guilty to making false statements or 

representations with regard to firearms records. He requested a downward 

departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(3), asserting primarily that 

although he illegally purchased firearms, he did so with the purpose of selling 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40062 Document: 00515575721 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
No. 20-40062

2

them to law-abiding citizens in Mexico who needed the weapons for personal 

protection. The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 

the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months in prison and three years of 

supervised release. 

On appeal, De La Torre contends that the district court erred in not 

departing downward under § 5K2.0(a)(3). He acknowledges that we have 

held that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure, 

but he argues that the basis for this jurisdictional limitation was eliminated by 

the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and related cases. 

Post-Booker, we have held that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial 

of a downward departure unless the denial was based on the district court’s 

erroneous belief that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Lucas, 

516 F.3d 316, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 

627 (5th Cir. 2013). De La Torres does not argue that the district court 

denied his motion for a downward departure because the court mistakenly 

believed that it had no authority to depart. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to 

review the district court’s denial of the motion for a downward departure. 

See Lucas, 516 F.3d at 350. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-40062 Document: 00515575721 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
Exhibit 31.2

      I, Steven M. Grubner, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GeneThera, Inc.

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

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

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this report (the Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

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

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

         Date: March 31, 2005


         By: /s/ Steven M. Grubner
         -------------------------
         Steven M. Grubner
         Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                                Petsec Energy Ltd
                                  Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
        (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Petsec Energy Ltd, an Australian public limited liability
company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 28, 2005

Name:  Fiona Ann Robertson
Title: Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Petsec Energy Ltd and will be retained by Petsec Energy Ltd and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Listen

# Frederica Wilson

## U.S. Representative and CSSBMB Commissioner

Commissioner Wilson has distinguished herself as a fierce advocate for hardworking families to ensure that they have equal access to ladders of opportunity. She is an influential and impassioned voice in the fight for sensible gun control measures. The Florida lawmaker introduced the Commission on the Social Status Act and fought relentlessly for this landmark legislation to become law. As a former elementary school principal, board member, state legislator, and founder of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project, Congresswoman Wilson has earned a reputation as a “Voice for the Voiceless," but it is the voices of Black men and boys that have resonated the loudest for her. Commissioner Wilson founded the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project 30 years ago, to nurture and encourage Black boys to believe in themselves and realize their enormous potential. She has sent thousands of young men to college and other post-secondary opportunities and raised millions of dollars for scholarships.

-  Our Mission 
-  Commissioners 
-  Offices and Staff 
-  Careers 
-  Acquisition Opportunities 
-  Rankin Memorial Library 
-  FAQs
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

MR. ALLEN DAGER

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0447

MISLE Activity ID: 7818302

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on December 05, 

2023, seeking a revocation of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credential.

On Jan 10, 2024, the Coast Guard filed a Motion of Withdrawal from docket as:

Respondent signed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement in accordance with 46 CFR 5.203.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date. The 

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated January 10, 2024 at, 

Baltimore, MD

____________________________

Lauren M Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60348

Conference Calendar

 

MOSES CHARLES EVERETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDWARD M. HARGETT; CHRISTINE HOUSTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CV-128-B-B

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moses Charles Everett, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #76894,

appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Everett contends that the district

court erred in denying him additional credit against his sentence

for sexual battery. Everett’s claim is precluded by the United

States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.
No. 96-60348

- 2 -

2364, 2372-74 (1994), because the relief he seeks would imply the

invalidity of his state-court sentence. A review of the record 

indicates that Everett’s contentions are without merit. 

Everett’s appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

We caution Everett that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Everett is further cautioned to

review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

) 

ABC COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No.________________

)

v. ) Judge __________________

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

Defendant. )

)

___________________________________

BID PROTEST PRE-FILING NOTICE

___________________________________

Pursuant to Appendix C of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims 

(RCFC), ABC Company (ABC), hereby provides notice that it intends to file a bid protest 

in the United States Court of Federal Claims on or about ___________________ (insert 

date). As required by Appendix C, ABC provides the following information:

(a) ABC has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more 

of ABC’s stock (statement consistent with the disclosure requirements set forth 

in RCFC 7.1(a)).

(b) The procuring agency is _______________________________________ located at 

___________________________________. The solicitation or contract number at 

issue is __________________________________. 

(c) The contracting officer is Mr. John Doe and he may be contacted at (555) 123-4567 

(name and telephone number of contracting officer responsible for the 

procurement).

(d) The agency attorney is Ms. Jane Doe and she may be contacted at (789) 321-9876 

(name and telephone number of agency attorney; if attorney is not known, 

include a statement to that effect). 
(e) ABC intends to request a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief 

(statement as to whether plaintiff will be requesting temporary or injunctive 

relief pursuant to RCFC 65). 

(f) Plaintiff has or has not discussed the need for a temporary restraining order with 

counsel from the Department of Justice (statement as to whether the need for 

temporary or injunctive relief has been discussed with counsel from the 

Department of Justice and any response thereto). 

(g) This action was or was not preceded by the filing of a protest before the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (If the action was preceded by the 

filing of a protest before the GAO, state the number of the protest and whether 

a decision was issued.)

(h) Plaintiff contemplates filing a motion for entry of a protective order (statement as 

to whether plaintiff will request the entry of a protective order). 

As required by Appendix C, ABC has provided copies of this pre-filing notice to the 

Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Department of Justice, and the 

agency’s (state agency name) contracting officer.

Respectfully submitted,

(signature of attorney of record) 

James Smith, Attorney of Record

(address, telephone number, and 

e-mail address of attorney of record)
#### In the Matter of Donald Nuckel, as Administrator of the Estate of James Nuckel, Deceased, Respondent, v Raymond W. Giltner et al., Constituting the Board of Assessment Review for the Town of Nichols, et al., Appellants. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

— Kane, J. P.

Petitioner commenced a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to challenge the assessed valuation of real property owned by petitioner for the tax status day, 1980 (proceeding No. 1). Subsequently, on June 21, 1983, petitioner filed a note of issue and statement of readiness with regard to *958proceeding No. 1. Shortly thereafter, petitioner commenced a proceeding under Real Property Tax Law article 7 to challenge the assessed valuation of the real property owned by petitioner for the tax status day, 1983 (proceeding No. 2). On May 21, 1984, proceeding No. 1 appeared on the Trial Calendar, at which time the parties agreed that since proceeding No. 1 and proceeding No. 2 had common issues, they should be tried together. The parties’ stipulation, which was incorporated in an order by Trial Term, provided, *inter alia,*that:

> "ordered, that [proceeding No. 1 and proceeding No. 2] be, and the same hereby are joined for trial, and it is further

> "ordered, that the Note of Issue filed with the Clerk of this Court in [proceeding No. 1] on the 21st day of June, 1983, be, and the same hereby is vacated and [proceeding No. 1] is hereby stricken from the calendar of the Court, and it is further

> "ordered, *that the joined actions may be restored to the calendar in the present position of [proceeding] No. 1 * * * at any time within one year upon completion of pretrial discovery in [proceeding] No. 2** * *, and it is further

> "ordered, that [proceeding] No. 1 shall not be deemed to have been abandoned and the provisions of RPTL Section 718 shall not take effect with regard to it” (emphasis supplied).

By notice of motion dated November 8, 1985, petitioner moved to restore the above proceedings to the Trial Calendar. Over respondents’ objection with respect to proceeding No. 1, Special Term granted petitioner’s motion. This appeal ensued.

In light of the above-quoted order, we agree with Special Term’s resolution of this motion. The record indicates that petitioner never intended to abandon proceeding No. 1. In fact, respondents concede that proceeding No. 2 is still viable and, we note, proceeding No. 1 is joined with proceeding No. 2. Further, a letter from respondents’ attorney, dated September 29, 1985, indicates that there is a question as to whether pretrial discovery-with respect to proceeding No. 2 was complete as of that date. Finally, we note that respondents concede that petitioners have demonstrated the merit of proceeding No. 1. Consequently, we affirm *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 376, at 483-485).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2021417EN.01003001.xml

| 14.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/30

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M. 10418 - EFMS/Goldman Sachs/Parexel)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 417/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | EQT IX, controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. (‘EFMS’, Luxembourg); |
| --- | --- |

—

EQT IX, controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. (‘EFMS’, Luxembourg);

| — | The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA); |
| --- | --- |

—

The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA);

| — | Parexel International Corporation (‘Parexel’, USA), solely controlled by Parexel Investment Holdings, L.P., which in turn is solely controlled by funds advised by Pamplona Investment Partners, L.P. |
| --- | --- |

—

Parexel International Corporation (‘Parexel’, USA), solely controlled by Parexel Investment Holdings, L.P., which in turn is solely controlled by funds advised by Pamplona Investment Partners, L.P.

EFMS and Goldman Sachs acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Paraxel.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.

2.

| — | Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm, |
| --- | --- |

—

Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm,

| — | EFMS is an EQT investment fund that seeks to make investments primarily in Europe, with a focus on Northern Europe, |
| --- | --- |

—

EFMS is an EQT investment fund that seeks to make investments primarily in Europe, with a focus on Northern Europe,

| — | Parexel carries out biopharmaceutical outsourcing services providing a comprehensive suite of Phase I to IV solutions to the world’s biopharmaceutical companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

Parexel carries out biopharmaceutical outsourcing services providing a comprehensive suite of Phase I to IV solutions to the world’s biopharmaceutical companies.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M. 10418 - EFMS/Goldman Sachs/Parexel

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2460 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of 
              adult day health care services for veterans.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1745 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement under section 
1720(c)(1) of this title or a contract with each State home for payment 
by the Secretary for adult day health care provided to a veteran who is 
eligible for, but does not receive, nursing home care pursuant to 
subsection (a).
    ``(2) Payment under each agreement or contract between the 
Secretary and a State home under paragraph (1) for each veteran who 
receives care under such paragraph shall be made at a rate that is 
equal to 65 percent of the payment that the Secretary would pay to the 
State home pursuant to subsection (a)(2) if the veteran received 
nursing home care under subsection (a) rather than under paragraph (1) 
of this subsection.
    ``(3) Payment by the Secretary under paragraph (1) to a State home 
for adult day health care provided to a veteran described in that 
paragraph constitutes payment in full to the State home for such care 
furnished to that veteran.''; and
            (2) in the heading, by inserting ``, adult day health 
        care,'' after ``home care''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 1745 and inserting the following new item:

``1745. Nursing home care, adult day health care, and medications for 
                            veterans with service-connected 
                            disabilities.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of 
              adult day health care services for veterans.
```