alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 904.201 Hearing requests and case docketing. ( a ) If the respondent wishes a hearing on a NOVA, NOPS or NIDP, the request must be dated and in writing, and must be served in conformance with § 904.3 on the Agency counsel specified in the notice. The respondent must either attach a copy of the NOVA, NOPS or NIDP or refer to the relevant NOAA case number. Agency counsel will promptly forward the request for hearing to the Office of Administrative Law Judges.
( b ) Any party requesting a hearing under § 904.102(a)(3) must provide current contact information, including a working telephone number and email address (if one is available). The Agency and the Office of Administrative Law Judges must be promptly notified of any changes to this information.
( c ) If a written application is made to NOAA after the expiration of the time period established in this part for the required filing of hearing requests, Agency counsel will promptly forward the request for hearing along with documentation of service and any other relevant materials to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a determination on whether such request shall be considered timely filed. Determinations by the Judge regarding untimely hearing requests under this section shall be in writing.
( d ) Upon its receipt for filing in the Office of Administrative Law Judges, each request for hearing will be promptly assigned a docket number and thereafter the proceeding will be referred to by such number. Written notice of the assignment of hearing to a Judge will promptly be given to the parties.
[87 FR 38937, June 30, 2022]
Exhibit 32

 CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NANNACO, Inc., a Texas corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steve Careaga,
Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), that to their knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Steve Careaga
-------------------------------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Executive Officer
July 26, 2005


/s/ Steve Careaga
--------------------------------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Financial Officer
July 26, 2005

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to NANNACO, Inc. and will be retained by Nannaco, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
§ 1261.2 Requirements for clothing storage units. Each clothing storage unit that is subject to ASTM F2057-23, *Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units,* approved on February 1, 2023, shall comply with ASTM F2057-23. ASTM F2057-23 is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479, email: *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov .* For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ,* or go to *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .* A free, read-only copy of the standard is available for viewing on the ASTM website at *https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/ .* You may also obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; phone: (610) 832-9585; *www.astm.org .*
#### § 1102.30 Publication of manufacturer comments.

*Timing.* Subject to §§ 1102.12, 1102.24, and 1102.26, the Commission will publish in the Database manufacturer comments submitted in response to a report of harm that meet the minimum requirements set forth in § 1102.12(c). This publication will occur at the same time as the report of harm is published or as soon thereafter as practicable. An example of a circumstance that may make it impracticable to publish a manufacturer comment at the same time as a report of harm includes when the Commission did not receive the comment until on or after the publication date of the report of harm.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF XO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    
        STATE OF INCORPORATIONITC
    
    UtahLHP Equipment, Inc.
    
    DelawareV&K Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareXOFACQ, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO Alabama, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Arizona, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Asia Limited
    
    Hong KongXO California, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Colorado, LLC
    
    WashingtonXO Connecticut, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Delaware, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Domestic Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO D.C., Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Florida, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Georgia, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Global Communications, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO Hawaii, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Idaho, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Illinois, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Indiana, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Interactive, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO International Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO Kansas, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Kentucky, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO LMDS Holdings No. 1, Inc.
    
    NevadaXO
Network Services, Inc. (f/k/a XO Long Distance Services, Inc.)
    
    WashingtonXO Louisiana, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Maine, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Management Services, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Maryland, LLC
    
    WashingtonXO Massachusetts, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Michigan, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Minnesota, LLC
    
    WashingtonXO Mississippi, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Missouri, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Nevada Merger Sub, Inc.
    
    Delaware




---



##### 





XO New Hampshire, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO New Jersey, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO New Mexico, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO New York, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO North Carolina, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Ohio, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO One, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO Oregon, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Rhode Island, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareXO South Carolina, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Tennessee, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Texas, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Utah, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Virginia, LLC
    
    WashingtonXO Washington, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO West Virginia, Inc.
    
    WashingtonXO Wisconsin, Inc.
    
    WashingtonTelecommunications of Nevada LLC (40%)
    
    Delaware


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO DOMESTIC HOLDINGS, INC.XO Mindshare, LLC
    
    WashingtonXO Intercity Holdings No. 1, LLC
    
    Washington


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO INTERNATIONAL
        HOLDINGS, INC.XO International, Inc.
    
    DelawareNextlink Global ASP (Denmark)
    
    Denmark


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.XO Management Services Nevada, Inc.
    
    Washington


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO INTERCITY HOLDINGS
        NO.1, LLCXO Intercity Holdings No. 2, LLC
    
    DelawareXO Data Services, LLC
    
    Delaware


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO NEVADA MERGER SUB., INC.Telecommunications of Nevada LLC (50%)
    
    Delaware


SUBSIDIARIES OF XO LONG DISTANCE SERVICES,
        INC.XO Long
Distance Services (Virginia), LLC
    
    Washington
| **** |
|------|
#### Anna Gruhn, as Administratrix of the Estate of Kurt Gruhn, Deceased, Respondent, v. J. H. Taylor Construction Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and reinstate the verdict. [180 Misc. 956.]
### Part B—Energy Conservation Plans
#### John C. Prendergast and Another, Appellants, v. Cord-Meyer Company, Respondent.

Determination affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Page, JJ.
### §10345. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the National Science Foundation, from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1993, for carrying out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 102–490, §6, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3143.)
### Part C—Work Incentive Program for Recipients of Aid Under State Plan Approved Under Part A
### FOR PUBLICATION


### JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  I N R E C OMPLAINT OF J UDICIAL Nos. 08-90038, M ISCONDUCT 08-90050, 08-90051, 08-90054 

# 

and 08-90135
ORDER 

# 

Filed June 16, 2009

Before: David R. Thompson, Sidney R. Thomas, Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, Audrey B. Collins, Irma E. Gonzalez, Robert S. Lasnik, and Robert H. Whaley, Chief District Judges, and Terry J. Hatter, Senior District Judge.

ORDER

On April 1, 2009, the Chief Judge entered an order that required complainant to show cause why he should not besanctioned for his abuse of the misconduct complaint procedure. Complainant filed a response that does not respond sufficiently to the order to show cause.

We have carefully reviewed the record. Complainant has filed at least ten misconduct complaints over the last fiveyears, all but one of which have been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were conclusory and/or related to the merits of the subject judges’ rulings. Pursuant to Rule 10(a)of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, we conclude that complainant’s right to file further

7175misconduct complaints should be restricted. We direct the Clerk to enter the following pre-filing review order:

Pre-Filing Review Order

(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all misconduct complaints or petitions for review filed by complainant.

(2) Any future misconduct complaint or petition for review filed by complainant shall comply with the requirements ofthe Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, and shall contain the sentence “THIS COMPLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING REVIEW ORDER Nos. 08-90038, 08-90050, 08-90051, 08- 90054 and 08-90135 ” in capital letters in the caption of the complaint or petition.

(3) If complainant submits a misconduct complaint or petition for review in compliance with this order, the Clerk shall lodge the complaint or petition and accompanying documents.The Clerk shall not file the complaint or petition until complainant’s submission is reviewed and a determination is made as to whether it merits further review and should be filed.

(4) This pre-filing review order shall remain in effect until further order of the Judicial Council. Complainant may, no earlier than June 1, 2011, petition the Judicial Council to lift this pre-filing review order, setting forth the reasons why the order should be lifted.

Complainant’s failure to comply with this order shall result in any new misconduct complaints or petitions for review being dismissed or not being filed and other sanctions being levied as the Judicial Council may deem appropriate. 7176 I N R E C OMPLAINT OF J UDICIAL M ISCONDUCTPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
No: II-14-043 August 13, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Increases Oversight at Oconee Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is increasing its oversight of the Oconee nuclear 

power station after citing the plant for a violation related to the plant’s failure to identify and correct a 

crack in a weld on a key safety system.

The Oconee plant is operated by Duke Energy near Seneca, S.C., about 30 miles west of 

 Greenville.

The NRC staff held a conference with Duke Energy officials on July 31 to discuss the risk 

significance of a violation linked to plant staff’s failure to identify and correct a crack in a weld located 

in the Unit 1 high pressure injection system. The violation, identified during an NRC inspection in 

June, has been determined to be “white,” meaning it has low to moderate safety significance.

There was no immediate safety concern because the crack was repaired, but the NRC 

determined that the method used by the plant to check for cracks did not provide acceptable coverage 

and did not identify the crack before it began leaking.

The leak led to reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and a forced shutdown of 

Unit 1. The high pressure injection system provides water to help cool the reactor core during an 

accident if pressure in the system had remained high.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a colorcoded system which classifies findings as green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety 

significance. The white finding will result in the NRC conducting a supplemental inspection at Oconee. 

The inspection is designed to provide assurance that the root and contributing causes of risk-significant 

performance issues are understood in order to prevent recurrence.

“Duke Energy has taken initial corrective actions at the Oconee plant and the supplemental 

inspection is an important step in helping us ensure the plant continues to operate safely,” said Victor 

McCree, the NRC’s Region II administrator.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3587 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3587

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 application of Medicaid prompt pay requirement to claims for payment 
 for covered items and services furnished by any Medicaid health care 
                                entity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2011

Mr. Bilbray (for himself and Ms. Eshoo) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 application of Medicaid prompt pay requirement to claims for payment 
 for covered items and services furnished by any Medicaid health care 
                                entity.

    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 ``Fair Pay to Medicaid Providers Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF MEDICAID PROMPT PAY REQUIREMENTS TO ALL MEDICAID 
              HEALTH CARE ENTITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a) is amended in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
(83), by striking ``For purposes of this title'' and inserting 
``Subject to the previous sentence, a State plan shall not be in 
compliance with the requirement of clause (A) of paragraph (37) unless 
(i) such plan applies such requirement to claims for payment made for 
items and services covered under the plan and furnished by any person 
or entity eligible for payment under such plan (insofar as such person 
or entity is paid under this title on the basis of submission of 
claims) in the same or similar manner (but applying the same timeframes 
specified under such clause) as such plan applies such requirement to 
such services furnished by a practitioner described in such clause; and 
(ii) such plan provides for quarterly reports to be submitted by the 
State to the Secretary, presented by provider type, on the extent to 
which the State during each month of the previous quarter was in 
compliance with the requirement under such clause, including as applied 
under this sentence. For purposes of this title''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to claims made for covered services after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14

- 14

- 00414

- CV

Shawna K. Milne

v.

Koorosh Olyaie

(No. 1045855 IN CO CIVIL CT AT LAW NO 1 OF HA RRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00

$176.00

$10.00

$20.00

$10.00

$10.00

$58.00

$175.00

$20.00 12/19/2014

11/19/2014

10/29/2014

09/24/2014

09/05/2014

07/27/2014

06/26/2014

06/23 /2014

06/23/2014 E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Housto n, Texas

are $4 89 .00

.

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.2 

### IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT

OF APPEALS for the Fo urteenth Distri ct of Texas, June 5, 2015

.
#### Maureen Ash, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of T.A., S.A., L.A. and H.A., Infants, Appellant, v County of Monroe, Respondent. Terri Ash, Appellant, v County of Monroe, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[820 NYS2d 831]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered February 1, 2006. The order denied the motion of plaintiffs seeking leave to renew their opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Ash v County of Monroe*(32 AD3d 1167 [2006]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Green, JJ.
<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 Quarterly Report of Penge Corp (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kirk
Fischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(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.


                   /s/ Kirk Fischer
--------------------------------------------------------
         Kirk Fischer, Chief Executive Officer
                     February 13, 2007
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report**
 
1996 | 1997| 1998 | 1999 |2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.1:
Item Number:0600-D-04
CGP systemNumber:000569571
 
February 7, 2020
Order entered November 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00113-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.N. AND R.N., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-07618

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 21, 2016 second motion for extension of time 

to file an amended brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief filed by 

December 21, 2016.

We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted absent extenuating 

circumstances. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### Margaret H. Hurlbut and Others v. Lida K. Stelle and Others, Impleaded with Harry Wiggins.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter VII, related to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and consisted of sections 299 to 299c–6, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–129, §2(a), Dec. 6, 1999, 113 Stat. 1653.

Another prior subchapter VII, related to education, research, training, and demonstrations in heart disease, cancer, stroke, and related diseases and consisted of sections 299 to 299j, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–117, §12(d), Oct. 7, 1985, 99 Stat. 495.
§ 970.513 Revision of a license. ( a ) During the term of an exploration license, the licensee may submit to the Administrator an application for a revision of the license or the exploration plan associated with it. NOAA recognizes that changes in circumstances encountered, and in information and technology developed, by the licensee during exploration may require such revisions. In some cases it may even be advisable to recognize at the time of filing the original license application that although the essential information for issuing or transferring a license as specified in §§ 970.201 through 920.208 must be included in such application, some details may have to be provided in the future in the form of a revision. In such instances, the Administrator may issue or transfer a license which would authorize exploration activities and plans only to the extent described in the application.
( b ) The Administrator will approve such application for a revision upon a finding in writing that the revision will comply with the requirements of the Act and this part.
( c ) A change which would require an application to and approval by the Administrator as a revision is a major change in one or more of: ( 1 ) The bases for certifying the original application pursuant to §§ 970.401 through 970.406;
( 2 ) The bases for issuing or transferring the license pursuant to §§ 970.503 through 970.507; or
( 3 ) The terms, conditions and restrictions issued for the license pursuant to §§ 970.517 through 970.524. A major change is one which is of such significance so as to raise a question as to: ( i ) The applicant's ability to meet the requirements of the sections cited in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section; or
( ii ) The sufficiency of the terms, conditions and restrictions to accomplish their intended purpose.