alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - Flu.gov

#  Flu.gov 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**Apr, 2015

**Description:**
A federal government website managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The URL for this resource changed from Flu.gov to https://www.cdc.gov/flu/, and the Title of the page changed from Flu.gov to Influenza (flu). This web resource is currently being captured with our CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collection. The first date of capture for the new URL occurred on May 10, 2016. New location for access is https://wayback.archive-it.org/7319/*/https://www.cdc.gov/flu

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Children & Families,     	    Women,     	    Older People,     	    Health & Medicine,     	    African Americans

**Creator:**    	    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

**Language:**    	    Spanish,     	    English

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (7 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     http://espanol.flu.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     http://www.flu.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://espanol.cdc.gov/enes/flu/index.htm/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://twitter.com/CDCFlu/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://twitter.com/flugov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.cdc.gov/flu/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E50E20C63FC98D0&feature=plcp

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (7 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.723 What additional safety measures must I take when I conduct operations on a platform that has producing wells or has other hydrocarbon flow? You must take the following safety measures when you conduct operations with a rig unit on or jacked-up over a platform with producing wells or that has other hydrocarbon flow: ( a ) The movement of rig units and related equipment on and off a platform or from well to well on the same platform, including rigging up and rigging down, must be conducted in a safe manner;
( b ) You must install an emergency shutdown station for the production system near the rig operator's console;
( c ) You must shut-in all producible wells located in the affected wellbay below the surface and at the wellhead when: ( 1 ) You move a rig unit or related equipment on and off a platform. This includes rigging up and rigging down activities within 500 feet of the affected platform;
( 2 ) You move or skid a rig unit between wells on a platform; or
( 3 ) A MODU moves within 500 feet of a platform. You may resume production once the MODU is in place, secured, and ready to begin operations.
( d ) All wells in the same well-bay which are capable of producing hydrocarbons must be shut-in below the surface with a pump-through-type tubing plug and at the surface with a closed master valve prior to moving rig units and related equipment, unless otherwise approved by the District Manager. ( 1 ) A closed surface-controlled subsurface safety valve of the pump-through-type may be used in lieu of the pump-through-type tubing plug provided that the surface control has been locked out of operation.
( 2 ) The well to which a rig unit or related equipment is to be moved must be equipped with a back-pressure valve prior to removing the tree and installing and testing the BOP system.
( 3 ) The well from which a rig unit or related equipment is to be moved must be equipped with a back pressure valve prior to removing the BOP system and installing the production tree.
( e ) Coiled tubing units, snubbing units, or wireline units may be moved onto and off of a platform without shutting in wells.
[81 FR 26022, Apr. 29, 2016, as amended at 84 FR 21977, May 15, 2019]
(No. 89-CC-0847

#### Richard R. Oldendorf, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 13, 1992.*

Richard R. Oldendorf, *pro se,*for Claimant.

*248Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondents motion to dismiss, due notice having been given, no objection having been filed, and the Court being advised, finds:

Claimant filed this claim seeking to recover the amount of an unemployment insurance warrant issued by the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The Division of Benefit Payment Control of the Department of Employment Security holds administrative hearings to determine whether a warrant should be reissued. The claims adjudicator denied reissuance of the warrant.

Section 3 — 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3 — 104) states that jurisdiction to review final administrative decisions is vested in the circuit court. The fact that the review of the decision of the Division of Benefit Payment Control is provided *249through administrative review in the circuit court prevents the Court of Claims from assuming jurisdiction over claims such as the instant one. *Rivera v. State*(1981), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375; *Moore v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108; *Anaya v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 161.

We further find that Respondent’s counsel learned that, notwithstanding and unaware of the above Court of Claims decision, attorneys for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago and the Department of Employment Security entered into a consent decree before Federal Judge Prentice Marshall in a case entitled *Bums.*As part of such decree, the parties agreed to add language to Benefit Payment Control’s written administrative decisions that suggested that a person aggrieved by the decision should proceed in the Court of Claims. Respondent’s counsel informed both the Legal Assistance Foundation and the Illinois Department of Employment Security of the jurisdictional problem of which the signers of the consent decree were unaware. The Department of Employment Security is attempting to resolve this problem by administratively reissuing or rehearing those pending cases, such as the instant one, where review was erroneously sought in the Court of Claims, so that claimants will have enough time to seek review in the circuit court.

In the motion at bar, Respondent seeks dismissal without prejudice and with leave to file if the benefit control division of the Department of Employment Security does not reissue its administrative decision. Respondent does not indicate how the Court should proceed with the case should it be dismissed and then refiled. Jurisdiction cannot be vested with a court solely based on agreement of the parties and Respondent does not suggest the cited cases are wrong.

*250Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and without leave to refile.
§ 1229.109 Reimbursement for costs incurred by a State under the delegation of authority. ( a ) The Department of the Interior (DOI) shall reimburse the State for 100 percent of the direct cost associated with the activities undertaken under the delegation of authority. The State shall maintain books and records in accordance with the standards established by the DOI and will provide the DOI, on a quarterly basis, a summary of costs incurred for which the State is seeking reimbursement. Only costs as defined under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 1735 are eligible for reimbursement.
( b ) The State shall submit a voucher for reimbursement of costs incurred within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter.
[49 FR 37351, Sept. 21, 1984]
§ 960.403 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to all dwelling units in mixed population projects (as defined in § 960.405), or portions of mixed population projects, assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. These projects formerly were known as elderly projects.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to section 23 and section 10(c) leased housing projects or the section 23 Housing Assistance Payments Program where the owners enter into leases directly with the tenants, or to the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program, the Low-Rent Housing Homeownership Opportunities Program (Turnkey III), the Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunities Program, or to Indian Housing Authorities. (For applicability to Indian Housing Authorities, see part 905 of this chapter.) Additionally, this subpart is not applicable to projects designated for elderly families or designated for disabled families in accordance with 24 CFR part 945.
Exhibit 32.1



18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Annual Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|              |  |                                                      
|------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|              | 
|April 8, 2005 |  | /s/    JOHN H.
HOMIER                                
|              |  | John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer
|             



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §2195. Protection from inter-debtor transfers

#### (a) Protection of creditors

While an Oversight Board for Puerto Rico is in existence, if any property of any territorial instrumentality of Puerto Rico is transferred in violation of applicable law under which any creditor has a valid pledge of, security interest in, or lien on such property, or which deprives any such territorial instrumentality of property in violation of applicable law assuring the transfer of such property to such territorial instrumentality for the benefit of its creditors, then the transferee shall be liable for the value of such property.

#### (b) Enforceability

A creditor may enforce rights under this section by bringing an action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico after the expiration or lifting of the stay of section 2194 of this title, unless a stay under subchapter III is in effect.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title IV, §407, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 592.)
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Joseph Y. Liu, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Oplink Communications, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls 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 caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financing reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 10, 2005          /s/ Joseph Y. Liu  Joseph Y. Liu  President and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.833 Specification for underwater safety valves (USVs). All USVs, including those designated as primary or secondary, and any alternate isolation valve (AIV) that acts as a USV, if applicable, and their actuators, must conform to the requirements specified in §§ 250.801 through 250.803. A production master or wing valve may qualify as a USV under ANSI/API Spec. 6A and API Spec. 6AV1 (both incorporated by reference in § 250.198). ( a ) Primary USV (USV1). You must install and designate one USV on a subsea tree as the USV1. The USV1 must be located upstream of the choke valve. As provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must inform BSEE if the primary USV designation changes.
( b ) Secondary USV (USV2). You may equip your tree with two or more valves qualified to be designated as a USV, one of which may be designated as the USV2. If the USV1 fails to operate properly or exhibits a leakage rate greater than allowed in § 250.880, you must notify the appropriate District Office and designate the USV2 or another qualified valve (e.g., an AIV) that meets all the requirements of this subpart for USVs as the USV1. The USV2 must be located upstream of the choke.
[81 FR 60918, Sept. 7, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 49257, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### § 285.823 Will BSEE reimburse me for my expenses related to inspections?

Upon request, BSEE will reimburse you for food, quarters, and transportation that you provide for our representatives while they inspect your lease or grant facilities and associated activities. You must send us your reimbursement request within 90 days of the inspection.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
**Pursuant to**
**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, Richard P. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Casino & EntertainmentProperties LLC (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review ofthe annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of the Registrant (the“Report”):
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   By:    /s/ Richard P. Brown     Richard P. Brown    President and Chief Executive Officer of       American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC
Date: March 16, 2005
#### LOVINSKY v. ROSENBERG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

Action by Victor Lovinsky against Morris Rosenberg. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

John E. Donnelly, for appellant.

Alex B. Greenberg, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Upon a claim by an assignee for goods sold and delivered, and sale and delivery admitted, the defendant urged payment. That fact was disputed, and found against him, and no sufficient reason appears for interference here, excepting that, as the claim, dating from December 8, 1897, was for $106.25 and interest, and payment of $19 thereon was admitted by the assignor of the plaintiff, to whom, as testified, had been assigned the balance, the judgment rendered for $137.25 must be reduced to the sum of $115, besides costs, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal. Judgment reduced to $115, besides costs, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without ■costs of this appeal. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dolores Andujar, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, dated May 17, 1976, convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law, § 220.41), and sentencing him to a term of six years to life imprisonment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed. Defendant was charged with the sale of heroin to an undercover officer in defendant’s grocery store on January 22, 1975. Defendant took the stand and on his direct examination testified that he had never possessed or used heroin and, implicitly, that he had never sold any. In rebuttal, the District Attorney was permitted to show another sale by defendant on January 27 from the same grocery store to an informant. Normally, subject to the exceptions in *People v Molineux*(168 NY 264), the jury is not to be informed of the defendant’s guilt of an unrelated crime. A defendant who takes the stand, however, may be cross-examined as to unrelated crimes. But this evidence is admitted only as bearing on credibility and not as evidence in chief; and such evidence is deemed collateral in the sense that the prosecutor is bound by the defendant’s answers (again with certain exceptions), and may not introduce independent evidence to prove the falsity of defendant’s statements. Where, however, a party testifies to what would otherwise be collateral matter involving solely credibility on direct examination, he does not preclude his adversary from introducing independent evidence to show that the testimony thus given is false. He has " 'opened the door’ on the issue, made what he later argued was a collateral issue a material one, and he could not benefit from his testimony on direct examination, yet bar its refutation on [his adversary’s] case.” *(Halloran v Virginia Chems.,*41 NY2d 386, 393; *Walder v United States,*347 US 62.) Thus, technically defendant’s testimony denying that he had "ever” possessed, used, or perhaps, sold heroin opened the door to the prosecutor’s proof that on another occasion he had possessed, used or sold heroin. However, in the present case, the trial was very brief; the testimony covered only about 80 pages, and of this probably one third was devoted to the incident of January 27, with the prosecution producing police officers to testify to the incident and to the search of the defendant on January 27 and the tracing of the marked money on that date, etc.. Thus, the trial was distorted and a major issue became whether the defendant was guilty of the crime on January 27. This was an excessive reaction to the three short rather general answers which the defendant had given on direct examination, and in our view, the over-all result was to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.