alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 76.654 Benefits for private school students. ( a ) *Comparable benefits.* The program benefits that a subgrantee provides for students enrolled in private schools must be comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to the program benefits that the subgrantee provides for students enrolled in public schools.
( b ) *Same benefits.* If a subgrantee uses funds under a program for public school students in a particular attendance area, or grade or age level, the subgrantee shall insure equitable opportunities for participation by students enrolled in private schools who: ( 1 ) Have the same needs as the public school students to be served; and
( 2 ) Are in that group, attendance area, or age or grade level.
( c ) *Different benefits.* If the needs of students enrolled in private schools are different from the needs of students enrolled in public schools, a subgrantee shall provide program benefits for the private school students that are different from the benefits the subgrantee provides for the public school students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
MALONE & BAILE, PLLC
Certified Public Accountants
5444 Westheimer Rd., suite 2080
Houston, Texas  77056
(713)840-1210
Fax (713)840-9034




April 14, 2003

To the Board of Directors
Charles Booth, Inc.
1004 Depot Hill Road, Suite 1-E
Broomfield, CO 80020-7089


We have reviewed the financial  statements of Charles Booth,  Inc. for the three
months and nine months ended September 30, 2002.  Professional standards require
that we provide you with the following information related to our review.

Accounting Estimates

Accounting  estimates are an integral part of the financial  statements prepared
by management and are based on management's  knowledge and experience about past
and current  events and  assumptions  about future  events.  Certain  accounting
estimates  are  particularly  sensitive  because  of their  significance  to the
financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting
them may differ slightly from those expected.

We evaluated  the key factors and  assumptions  used to develop the estimates in
determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial  statements as
a whole.

Disagreements with Management

For purposes of this letter,  professional  standards define a disagreement with
management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction,  concerning
a financial  accounting  or reporting  matter that could be  significant  to the
financial  statements.  We are please to report that no such disagreements arose
during the course of the review.

Consultations with Other Independent Accountants

In some cases,  management  may decide to consult with other  accountants  about
accounting  matters,   similar  to  obtaining  a  "second  opinion"  on  certain
situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to
the Company's  financial  statements or a determination of the type of auditor's
opinion that may be expressed in those  situation,  our  professional  standards
require  the  consulting  accountant  to  check  with us to  determine  that the
consultant  has all the relevant  facts.  To our  knowledge,  there were no such
consultations with other accountants.


<PAGE>

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Review

We  encountered  no  significant  difficulties  in dealing  with  management  in
performing and completing our review.

This  information  is intended  solely for the use of the Board of Directors and
management  of  September  30, 2002 and is not  intended to be and should not be
used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ John C. Malone
------------------------
John C. Malone










                                       2
### [§1904. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330004(11), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2141]

Section, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 791; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), 108 Stat. 2147, related to disclosure of information or speculation in securities affecting Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 of North American Van
Lines, Inc. (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ Brian P. KelleyBrian P. Kelley
Chief Executive Officer
November 21, 2003
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# Official Journal C 441A/10 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 441A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5710 December 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 441A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5710 December 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2014/C 441A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2014/C 441A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 441A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 2 |

2014/C 441A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### §3740. Argument—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Setting appeal for argument; preference to criminal appeals, Rule 39(d).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 846.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was abrogated Dec. 4, 1967, eff. July 1, 1968, and is covered by Rule 34, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 188

 166

 155

 155

 156

 157

 159

 158

 161

 152

 149

 154

 146

 148

 155

 151

 159

 174

 164

 168

 177

 186

 183

 175

 181

 176

 202

 165

 148

 145

 126

 127

 125

 120

 118

 116

 123

 122

 125

 121

 127

 133

 136

 141

 149

 150

 149

 153

 158

 160

 161

 162

 163

 165

 162

 154

 161

 154

 139

 138

 138

 142

 140

 136

 138

 137

 136

 136

 137

 140

 145

 145

 152

 155

 157

 161

 163

 166

 168

 167

 168

 170

 172

 159

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 7, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 1,992

 2,146

 2,148

 2,155

 2,162

 2,168

 2,156

 2,132

 2,109

 2,084

 2,056

 2,028

 1,998

 1,972

 1,956

 1,947

 1,960

 1,977

 1,996

 2,015

 2,038

 2,068

 2,098

 2,128

 2,160

 2,194

 2,229

 2,248

 142

 153

 153

 154

 154

 155

 154

 152

 151

 149

 147

 145

 143

 141

 140

 139

 140

 141

 143

 144

 146

 148

 150

 152

 154

 157

 159

 161

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 690.65 Transfer student: attendance at more than one institution during an award year. ( a ) If a student who receives a Federal Pell Grant at one institution subsequently enrolls at a second institution in the same award year, the student may receive a Federal Pell Grant at the second institution only if— ( 1 ) The student submits a valid SAR to the second institution; or
( 2 ) The second institution obtains a valid ISIR.
( b ) The second institution shall calculate the student's award according to § 690.63.
( c ) The second institution may pay a Federal Pell Grant only for that portion of the academic year in which a student is enrolled at that institution. The grant amount must be adjusted, if necessary, to ensure that the grant does not exceed one and one-half of the student's Scheduled Federal Pell Grant for that award year.
( d ) If a student's Scheduled Federal Pell Grant at the second institution differs from the Scheduled Federal Pell Grant at the first institution, the grant amount at the second institution is calculated as follows— ( 1 ) The amount received at the first institution is compared to the Scheduled Federal Pell Grant at the first institution to determine the percentage of the Scheduled Federal Pell Grant that the student has received.
( 2 ) That percentage is subtracted from 100 percent or 150 percent, if the student is eligible to receive additional Federal Pell Grant funds in an amount up to one-half of a Scheduled Award during a single award year.
( 3 ) The remaining percentage is the percentage of the Scheduled Federal Pell Grant at the second institution to which the student is entitled.
( e ) The student's Federal Pell Grant for each payment period is calculated according to the procedures in § 690.63 unless the remaining percentage of the Scheduled Federal Pell Grant at the second institution, referred to in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, is less than the amount the student would normally receive for that payment period. In that case, the student's Federal Pell Grant is equal to that remaining percentage.
( f ) A transfer student shall repay any amount received in an award year that exceeds his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant, or one and one-half of his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant, whichever is applicable.
[50 FR 10722, Mar. 15, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 43162, Nov. 28, 1986; 59 FR 54730, 54734, Nov. 1, 1994; 77 FR 25901, May 2, 2012; 86 FR 59626, Oct. 28, 2021]
§ 81.34 Notice of a disallowance decision. ( a ) If an authorized Departmental official decides that a recipient must return funds under § 81.30, the official gives the recipient written notice of a disallowance decision. The official sends the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means that ensure proof of receipt.
( b ) ( 1 ) The notice must establish a prima facie case for the recovery of funds, including an analysis reflecting the value of the program services actually obtained in a determination of harm to the Federal interest.
( 2 ) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is a statement of the law and the facts that, unless rebutted, is sufficient to sustain the conclusion drawn in the notice. The facts may be set out in the notice or in a document that is identified in the notice and available to the recipient.
( 3 ) A statement that the recipient failed to maintain records required by law or failed to allow an authorized representative of the Secretary access to those records constitutes a prima facie case for the recovery of the funds affected. ( i ) If the recipient failed to maintain records, the statement must briefly describe the types of records that were not maintained and identify the recordkeeping requirement that was violated.
( ii ) If the recipient failed to allow access to records, the statement must briefly describe the recipient's actions that constituted the failure and identify the access requirement that was violated.
( c ) The notice must inform the recipient that it may— ( 1 ) Obtain a review of the disallowance decision by the OALJ; and
( 2 ) Request mediation under § 81.13.
( d ) The notice must describe— ( 1 ) The time available to apply for a review of the disallowance decision; and
( 2 ) The procedure for filing an application for review.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1234(f)(1), 1234a(a), and 3474(a))
[54 FR 19512, May 5, 1989. Redesignated and amended at 58 FR 43473, Aug. 16, 1993; 60 FR 46494, Sept. 6, 1995; 61 FR 14484, Apr. 2, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   565
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                          65
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       565
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (885)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (885)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
### Part A—Market Access
### §1347. Health care fraud

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—

(1) to defraud any health care benefit program; or

(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program,

in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. If the violation results in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title), such person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and if the violation results in death, such person shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

(b) With respect to violations of this section, a person need not have actual knowledge of this section or specific intent to commit a violation of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 104–191, title II, §242(a)(1), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2016; amended Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10606(b), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 1008.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–148 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
#### § 299.16 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70344, Aug. 29, 2024.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,126

 1,396

 1,351

 837

 701

 885

 565

 620

 612

 453

 411

 391

 386

 342

 302

 287

 325

 230

 217

 184

 166

 175

 263

 211

 203

 262

 301

 361

 454

 298

 260

 220

 230

 226

 215

 200

 188

 176

 191

 196

 191

 179

 171

 160

 155

 151

 153

 164

 157

 153

 147

 145

 141

 135

 139

 143

 147

 152

 160

 158

 155

 152

 544

 440

 390

 340

 274

 265

 230

 236

 241

 234

 237

 227

 216

 205

 192

 189

 200

 180

 169

 161

 152

 150

 153

 151

 157

 169

 185

 202

 202

 182

 174

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 10, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,819

 4,019

 4,158

 4,306

 4,413

 4,516

 4,588

 4,663

 4,737

 4,780

 4,776

 4,595

 4,353

 4,079

 3,727

 3,476

 3,286

 3,126

 3,021

 2,917

 2,839

 2,753

 2,665

 2,582

 2,502

 2,444

 2,413

 2,410

 2,420

 2,413

 2,387

 273

 287

 297

 308

 315

 323

 328

 333

 338

 341

 341

 328

 311

 291

 266

 248

 235

 223

 216

 208

 203

 197

 190

 184

 179

 175

 172

 172

 173

 172

 171

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 564

 562

 582

 668

 633

 614

 616

 627

 630

 599

 608

 610

 600

 608

 635

 582

 591

 581

 562

 575

 601

 585

 617

 546

 596

 593

 615

 650

 623

 628

 612

 453

 476

 463

 490

 492

 511

 499

 502

 502

 455

 483

 510

 538

 533

 491

 478

 494

 497

 474

 466

 486

 454

 435

 467

 484

 503

 529

 530

 517

 544

 535

 510

 519

 526

 558

 551

 561

 552

 542

 557

 536

 554

 557

 573

 570

 554

 544

 555

 545

 522

 532

 522

 509

 506

 518

 536

 557

 574

 596

 567

 580

 577

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 19, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 331

 337

 341

 361

 357

 363

 357

 351

 360

 347

 358

 360

 370

 368

 358

 352

 359

 353

 339

 345

 339

 331

 329

 336

 347

 360

 371

 384

 366

 374

 373

TOTAL 16,960

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
#### Interstate Savings & Loan Association, appellee, v. Hattie B. Strine et al., appellants.

Filed September 21, 1899.

No. 8,724.

1. Foreign Building and Loan Associations: Usury. Foreign building and loan associations doing business in this state are, on their usurious contracts, subject to the penalties of the statute against usury.

2. Conflicting Evidence: Review. A finding of the trial court on substantially conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.

Rehearing of case reported in 58 Nebr., 133.

*Judgment below reversed.*

*Daniel F. Osgood,*for appellants.

*Benjamin F. Johnson, contra.*

Sullivan, J.

An opinion was filed at the last term reversing the judgment of the district court, and remanding the cause with instructions. A rehearing was allowed on the application of the appellee, and the cause has been argued and again submitted. The principal contention of the loan association is that the usury law is not applicable to either domestic or foreign corporations of the class to which it belongs. That building and loan associations, incorporated under the laws of this state, are not affected by the statute against usury is settled beyond controversy. But in *National Mutual Building & Loan Ass’n v.*
      *28
      *Keeney,*57 Nebr., 94, we held that foreign associations are not within the proviso of section 9 of the act of 1891 (Session Laws, 1891, p. 207, ch. 14, sec. 9), that being the clause under which the exemption is claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff has presented a very able argument against the injustice and ' impolicy of discriminating against building and loan associations organized under the laws of other states; but he has entirely failed to convince us that the legislature intended to except such -corporations from the operation of the law against usury. The legislative policy may be unwise, but the legislative meaning is not doubtful. The conclusion heretofore reached upon this question is manifestly sound and will be adhered to.

In the former opinion it was said that there was some -conflict in the evidence as to whether the mortgaged property was the homestead of the Strines at the time the ' mortgage was executed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to the district court to determine that question. Our attention is now directed to the fact that the trial court, as shown by the record, made the following finding: “The court further finds that said premises, at the time of the execution of said above described mortgage by the defendants, was not their homestead.” It being thus settled that the property was not the homestead of the appellants when the loan was made, and the security given, there should be entered in the district court a decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff for $374.30. All costs, except those incurred in enforcing the decree, should be taxed to the plaintiff.

Judgment accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted) (the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), Ernest Mario, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of
IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "COMPANY"), and Eric H. Bjerkholt, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best
of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "PERIODIC
REPORT"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 14, 2002

/s/ E. Mario                                 /s/ Eric Bjerkholt
------------------------------               -----------------------------------
Ernest Mario, Ph.D.                          Eric H. Bjerkholt
Chief Executive Officer                      Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 693

 693

 660

 683

 655

 621

 590

 582

 570

 495

 499

 466

 462

 454

 439

 418

 465

 468

 483

 493

 497

 568

 626

 617

 564

 592

 605

 680

 680

 671

 677

 441

 437

 428

 447

 477

 506

 493

 509

 470

 416

 416

 409

 415

 397

 396

 380

 416

 420

 463

 464

 480

 498

 539

 552

 548

 553

 575

 571

 655

 635

 637

 548

 568

 540

 572

 548

 569

 537

 538

 511

 466

 464

 428

 437

 421

 416

 401

 435

 442

 469

 475

 488

 538

 573

 571

 555

 563

 594

 598

 669

 647

 647

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 4, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 355

 367

 350

 369

 355

 368

 348

 348

 332

 304

 303

 281

 286

 276

 273

 264

 285

 289

 306

 310

 318

 348

 370

 369

 359

 364

 383

 386

 429

 416

 416

TOTAL 16,228

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
#### § 106.24 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

[85 FR 30574, May 19, 2020]