alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         20,217
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    101,118
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               423,273
<PP&E>                                         2,046,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                 189,137
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,404,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          247,020
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    469,233
<COMMON>                                       7,061,684
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,899,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,404,360
<SALES>                                        207,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,070
<CGS>                                          187,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,586,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               121,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,658,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,658,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,658,047
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.07)



</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4350 

To ensure that certain flight, duty, and rest requirements apply to allcargo air operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Mr. CRAVAACK (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To ensure that certain flight, duty, and rest requirements 

apply to all-cargo air operations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Skies Act of 

5 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the effective date 

8 of the covered final rule, the Secretary of Transportation 

9 shall take appropriate actions to ensure that the flight, 

10 duty, and rest requirements under that rule apply to allVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:31 Apr 17, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4350.IH H4350

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4350 IH

1 cargo operations conducted by air carriers in the same 

2 manner as such requirements apply to passenger oper3 ations conducted by air carriers. 

4 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered 

5 final rule’’ means the final rule of the Department of 

6 Transportation— 

7 (1) published in the Federal Register on Janu8 ary 4, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 330 et seq.); and 

9 (2) relating to flightcrew member duty and rest 

10 requirements. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc., Appellant, and Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 27, 1977 denying petitioner’s motion for an order to punish respondents Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York for contempt and also modifying order, Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 15, 1975 by striking therefrom the provisions staying respondents, Aluminum Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, from proceeding with actions instituted by said respondents in the State as well as Federal courts in the State of Oklahoma, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable by appellant to respondents. In so affirming, however, we modify a finding of fact reached at Special Term (CPLR 5712, subd [b]). The court found that respondent Aluminum had not timely objected to petitioner’s notice of intention to arbitrate. The record discloses that said notice was mailed by petitioner on July 25, 1974 and received by respondents on July 26, 1974. Respondent’s application, made on August 15, 1974, to stay arbitration (CPLR 7503, subd [b]) was therefore timely. *(Monarch Ins. Co. v*
      *929
      *Pollack,*32 AD2d 819.) Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.
#### Colleen Mahoney, Appellant, v Olean General Hospital, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[715 NYS2d 677]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *see also, Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts &*Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; CPLR *10465501 [a] [1]). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
§ 51.54 Replacement passports without payment of applicable fees. A passport issuing office may issue a replacement passport for the following reasons without payment of applicable fees: ( a ) To correct an error or rectify a mistake of the Department;
( b ) When the bearer has changed his or her name or other personal identifier listed on the data page of the passport, and applies for a replacement passport within one year of the date of the passport's original issuance.
( c ) When the bearer of an emergency full fee passport issued for a limited validity period applies for a full validity passport within one year of the date of the passport's original issuance.
( d ) When a passport is retained by U.S. law enforcement or judiciary for evidentiary purposes and the bearer is still eligible to have a passport.
( e ) When a passport is issued to replace a passport with a failed electronic chip for the balance of the original validity period.
#### § 306.6 Freedom from retaliation.

Aggrieved parties, their representatives, and witnesses will be free from retaliation at any stage in the presentation and processing of a complaint under this section, including the counseling stage described in 306.8 of this Part, or any time thereafter.
### §§248c, 248d. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VII, §727(a)(1), (2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2596

Section 248c, Pub. L. 97–99, title IX, §911, Dec. 23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1386; Pub. L. 98–94, title XII, §1252(g), formerly §1252(f), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 699, renumbered §1252(g), Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title VII, §718(b)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1586; Pub. L. 98–557, §17(f)(1), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2868, related to continued use of former Public Health Service facilities.

Section 248d, Pub. L. 98–94, title XII, §1252, Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 698; Pub. L. 98–557, §17(f)(2), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2868; Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title VII, §706, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3905; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title VI, §645, Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 1988; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title VII, §718(a), (b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1586, 1587; Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, §705(h), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 121; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VII, §717(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1693; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VII, §§721, 722, 727, title XV, §1502(c)(8), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 377, 380, 508, related to Public Health Service facilities providing medical care for dependents, members, and former members of uniformed services.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1997, see section 727(b) of Pub. L. 104–201, set out in an Inclusion of Certain Designated Providers in Uniformed Services Health Care Delivery System note under section 1073 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

#### Equitable Implementation of Uniform Cost Sharing Requirements for Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VII, §726, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 379, provided that the uniform managed care benefit fee and copayment schedule developed by Secretary of Defense for use in all managed care initiatives of military health service system be extended to managed care program of Uniformed Services Treatment Facility only after the later of the implementation of the TRICARE regional program covering service area of Facility or Oct. 1, 1996, and provided for evaluation of such extension by Comptroller General, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VII, §727(a)(4), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2596.

#### Managed-Care Delivery and Reimbursement Model for the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title VII, §718(c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1587, as amended by Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VII, §716, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2438; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VII, §718, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1694; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VII, §§724(a), 725, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 378, provided that not later than Nov. 5, 1990, the Secretary of Defense was to begin operation of a managed-care delivery and reimbursement model to continue to use Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities in the military health services system, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VII, §727(a)(3), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2596.
### §3796aa–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796aa–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10333 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Timothy P. Losik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Timothy P. Losik    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Timothy P. Losik        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 8, 2003     |

 

----
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frank M. Semple, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures****andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 12, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Frank  M. Semple    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     |   | Frank M. Semple         |
|                     |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Michele J. Marzullo et al., v. Stephen P. Kennedy, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al.

Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the proceeding to be heard upon a typewritten record, without printing the same, but upon printed petitioners’ points; the petitioners to serve one copy of the typewritten record in this proceeding upon the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and file six copies of the typewritten record together with the printed petitioners’ points with this court on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said proceeding to be argued or submitted when reached.
Medicine Bow

ALBANY
LARAMIE

MMMM Class! - Preserve the existing character of the landscape O10 220 a0 60 80 100
MMH Class II - Retain the existing character of the landscape Kilometers
Class Ill - Partially retain the existing character of the landscape a
| _] Class IV - Management activities may dominate the landscape Miles
Map 2-50

Visual Resource Management
Alternative 4

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
### §300cc. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §104(b)(2)(C), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3693

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXIII, §2301, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §201(4), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3063; amended Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312(d)(16), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3505, required an annual comprehensive report on all expenditures by Secretary with respect to AIDS.

A prior section 300cc, act July 1, 1944, §2301, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts and transferred, see section 238 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable only with respect to amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007 or subsequent fiscal years, see section 109 of Pub. L. 109–482, set out as an Effective Date of 2007 Amendment note under section 281 of this title.
#### § 304.7 Authority to adjust, determine, compromise, and settle claims.

The authority to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise and settle claims of less than $5,000 under 28 U.S.C. 2672, and this subpart, rests with the Chief Financial Officer, as the designee of the head of the agency. For claims under 28 U.S.C. 2672 and this subpart, subject to § 304.8, the Director of the Peace Corps retains authority to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise and settle claims of $5,000 or more.

[72 FR 4206, Jan. 30, 2007]
#### In the Matter of Leon Linzenberg, Appellant, v Morton Summer et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 886]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, dated April 15, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for certain area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated December 17, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner applied for several area variances in order to build a single-family house on a substandard lot in the Town of Ramapo. After a public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) denied the application on the grounds, *inter alia,*that the requested variances for the lot size, lot width, side setback, street frontage, and floor area ratio were substantial in number and degree, the proposed house would produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and the petitioner’s alleged economic hardship was self-created. The record reveals that the ZBA properly balanced the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood if the area variances were granted *(see,*Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; *Matter of Sasso v Osgood,*86 NY2d 374). Although there may be factors weighing in favor of granting the variances, the Supreme Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the ZBA where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the denial of the application *(see, Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the ZBA may be sustained without reference to the memorandum prepared by the clerk of the ZBA *(see, Matter of De Blois v*
      *317
      *Wallace,*88 AD2d 1073; *Matter of Russo v Stevens,*7 AD2d 575; *Matter of Wunder v Macomber,*34 Misc 2d 281). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### BLUM, Respondent, v. WHITNEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by Edwin Blum against Harry P. Whitney. P. A. Brown, for appellant. W. M. Bennett, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### In the Matter of Michael Browne, Respondent, v. New York State Board of Parole et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the New York State Board of Parole and New York State Department of Correction appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 16, 1960, granting the petition and directing them, *inter alia:*(a) to correct their records so as to state that the two sentences imposed upon petitioner run concurrently and not consecutively; and (b) to parole or discharge petitioner as provided by law. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. [25 Misc 2d 1050.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27779]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: December 16-17, 2004.
    Time: December 16, 2004, 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Stanford University, Stanford Terrace Inn, 531 Stanford 
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306.
    Time: December 17, 2004, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Stanford University, Stanford Terrace Inn, 531 Stanford 
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306.
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PHD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 402-0838.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domstic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-27779 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Index Admission Post

Discharge Whole

Episode Index Admission Post

Discharge Whole

Episode
One-Touch 11,419 13,772 14,436 One-Touch 12,199 15,037 15,503 Plurality of Cost 7,582 9,374 7,799 Plurality of Cost 8,824 11,208 9,300
Count (3,837) (4,398) (6,637) Count (3,375) (3,829) (6,203) Percent -34% -32% -46% Percent -28% -25% -40%

Notes: The One-Touch attribution rule associates any TIN billed by an EP during the indicated time period.

Table 1C. Example: how Plurality of Cost Method over the Whole Episode Can Produce Fewer Eligible TINs than Pluarlity of Cost in Post-Discharge

TIN 1 TIN 2 TIN 3 Max TIN TIN 1 TIN 2 TIN 3 Max TIN TIN 1 TIN 2 TIN 3 Max TIN 1 75% 25%

- 1 75% 25%

- 1 75% 25%

- 1 2 10% 90%

- 2 10% 90%

- 2 10% 90%

- 2 3 75% 25%

- 1 75%

- 25% 1 75% 12.5% 12.5% 1 4 90% 10%

- 1 90% 5% 5% 1 90% 8% 2% 1 5 75% 25%

- 1 35%

- 65% 3 65% 10% 25% 1 Eligible TINs 2 3 2 Note: For this scenario to hold, the costs incurred during index admission for episodes 3,4,5 must be larger than the cost incurred in the post-discharge period. Table 1B. Number of MSPB Eligible TINs by Attribution Rule - TINs used by 10+ EPs and Attributed 10+ MSPB Episodes Billing Time Period

Attribution Rule Table 1A. Number of MSPB Eligible TINs by Attribution Rule - TINs used by 10+ EPs and Attributed 20+ MSPB Episodes

Attribution Rule

Change Billing Time Period

The Post Discharge period includes the time between and including the discharge date through 30 days after discharge Change

Percent of Index Admission Costs Percent of Post-Discharge Costs Percent of Total Episode Cost Episode The MSPB episode includes the time period 3 days before admission thorugh 30 days after discharge of the index hospitalization. The Plurality of Cost attribution rule associates the one TIN with the plurality of Part B costs incurred by EPs during the
#### § 227.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.