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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2123 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the Medicaid 

rules regarding supplemental needs trusts for Medicaid beneficiaries to 

trusts established by those beneficiaries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. PALLONE) 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 extend 

the Medicaid rules regarding supplemental needs trusts 

for Medicaid beneficiaries to trusts established by those 

beneficiaries. 

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 ‘‘Special Needs Trust 

5 Fairness Act of 2013’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2123 IH

1 SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS 

2 TRUSTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(d)(4)(A) of the So4 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A)) is amended 

5 by inserting ‘‘the individual,’’ after ‘‘for the benefit of such 

6 individual by’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply to trusts established on or after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29185]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial 
Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as 
a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 481 A East Shore Parkway, New Haven, CT 
06512, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 
petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the 
provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ 
this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should 
request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is 
accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, 
inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is 
accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also 
be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c4f4e5c02404d4e445d6c48445f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="325150421c5e53505a4372565a411c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed 
below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited 
laboratories. 
http:[sol][sol]cbp.gov[sol]xp[sol]cgov[sol]import[sol]operations--
support[sol]labs--scientific--svcs[sol]commercial--gaugers[sol].

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 04, 2010. The 
next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29185 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven J. Malcolm, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Williams Partners L.P.;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 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 informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) 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; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 2, 2006       /s/ Steven J. Malcolm         Steven J. Malcolm    Chief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP    LLC, general partner of Williams Partners L.P.    (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[108th Congress Public Law 349]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ349.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1389]]

Public Law 108-349
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
  of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
             terms. <<NOTE: Oct. 21, 2004 -  [H.R. 5122]>> 

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

 SECTION 1. PERMITTING SECOND TERM FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF 
            COMPLIANCE.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 301(e)(1) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)) is 
amended to read as follows: ``A member of the Board may be reappointed, 
but no individual may serve as a member for more than 2 terms.''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 2 USC 1381 note.>> Effective Date.--The amendment made 
by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to individuals serving on the 
Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance on or after September 30, 
2004.

    Approved October 21, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5122:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 4, considered and passed Senate, amended.
            Oct. 6, House concurred in Senate amendment.

                                  <all>
```
§ 201.72 Production of all classes of certified seed. ( a ) Each certifying agency shall determine that genetic purity and identity are maintained at all stages of certification including seeding, harvesting, processing, and labeling of the seed.
( b ) The unit of certification shall be a clearly defined field or fields.
( c ) One or more field inspections shall be made ( 1 ) previous to the time a seed crop of any class of certified seed is to be harvested, and
( 2 ) when genetic purity and identity can best be determined. The field shall be in suitable condition to permit an adequate inspection to determine genetic purity and identity.
( d ) A certification sample shall be drawn in a manner approved by the certifying agency from each cleaned lot of seed eligible for certification. Evidence that any lot of seed has not been protected from contamination which might affect genetic purity, or is not properly identified, shall be cause for possible rejection of certification.
[38 FR 25662, Sept. 14, 1973]
#### Ronald J. DOMINO, Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 04-0702.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Aug. 22, 2007.

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

*399ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Pending before the Court is the appeal of a February 10, 2004, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision denying the appellant entitlement to service connection for a spastic stomach, claimed as ulcers. The Board denied the appellant’s claim based upon its finding that there was clear and unmistakable evidence of record showing that the appellant’s condition “preexisted service and was not permanently aggravated therein.” Record (R.) at 2. The appellant argues that the Board decision on appeal should be reversed because the Board erred in determining that there was clear and unmistakable evidence of record to rebut the presumption of soundness. The Secretary concedes that remand, but not reversal, is warranted because the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to support its decision and because the medical opinion of record on which the Board relied is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of soundness.

The Court requires that the parties file supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing the appropriate remedy in this case. Specifically, the parties are directed to address VA’s ability to develop additional evidence to meet its burden in rebutting the presumption of soundness, especially in light of the Board’s finding in this case that the VA regional office has “fully developed all evidence necessary for the equitable disposition of this claim” (R. at 2) and the Secretary’s apparent concession that the evidence presently of record is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of soundness. The parties are further directed to discuss or distinguish, as appropriate, specific statutory, regulatory, and other authorities in support of their arguments including, but not limited to, *Adams v. Principi,*256 F.3d 1318, 1321-22 (Fed.Cir.2001) (and authorities cited therein); *Mariano v. Principi,*17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003); *Meister v. Derwinski,*1 Vet.App. 472, 473 (1991) (per curiam); and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(c) (2007).

Furthermore, the matter will be set for oral argument on September 27, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. Therefore, the Court does not anticipate granting any motions for extensions of time to file the briefs required by this order, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 14 days after the date of this order, the parties file supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the above issues. It is further

ORDERED that this matter is set for oral argument on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in the Courtroom at Suite 900, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Counsel for the parties will be allotted 30 minutes each for presentation of argument.
**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 Annual Report of InrobTech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Ben-Tsur
      Joseph, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and 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.





Date:
                December 21, 2006
              
              ____/s/_______________
              Ben-Tsur
                Joseph
              Chief
                Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 281

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 281 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

#### § 281.8 Transfer of program administration.

The transfer of program administration from an agency of the State government to an ITO pursuant to a determination of failure as provided for in § 281.3, or from an ITO to an agency of the State government pursuant to § 281.7, shall be contingent on the establishment of an effective termination and transition arrangement and an approved Plan of Operation from the State agency assuming program administration. Grant closeout procedures shall be followed in accordance with part 277. FNS shall approve the transition plan, monitor its implementation and resolve any issues which may arise during the transition and after the transfer of program administration.
§ 210.12 Student, parent, and community involvement. ( a ) *General.* School food authorities shall promote activities to involve students and parents in the Program. Such activities may include menu planning, enhancement of the eating environment, Program promotion, and related student-community support activities. School food authorities are encouraged to use the school food service program to teach students about good nutrition practices and to involve the school faculty and the general community in activities to enhance the Program.
( b ) *Food service management companies.* School food authorities contracting with a food service management company shall comply with the provisions of § 210.16(a) regarding the establishment of an advisory board of parents, teachers and students.
( c ) *Residential child care institutions.* Residential child care institutions shall comply with the provisions of this section, to the extent possible.
( d ) *Outreach activities.* ( 1 ) To the maximum extent practicable, school food authorities must inform families about the availability breakfasts for students. Information about the School Breakfast Program must be distributed just prior to or at the beginning of the school year. In addition, schools are encouraged to send reminders regarding the availability of the School Breakfast Program multiple times throughout the school year.
( 2 ) School food authorities must cooperate with Summer Food Service Program sponsors to distribute materials to inform families of the availability and location of free Summer Food Service Program meals for students when school is not in session.
( e ) *Local school wellness policies.* Local educational agencies must comply with the provisions of § 210.31(d) regarding student, parent, and community involvement in the development, implementation, and periodic review and update of the local school wellness policy.
[53 FR 29147, Aug. 2, 1988, as amended at 78 FR 13448, Feb. 28, 2013; 81 FR 50168, July 29, 2016; 89 FR 32073, Apr. 25, 2024]
Description of salary increase for Ivan G. Seidenberg



 EXHIBIT 10w 
  

Description of Cash Compensation 
  
 As of January 1, 2005, Mr. Seidenberg’s salary increased to $2,100,000. On Janaury 20, 2005, the independent directors of the Verizon Board approved
a 2004 Short-Term Incentive Award for Mr. Seidenberg of $3,375,000.
§ 240.9 Use of funds. ( a ) Funds made available to school food authorities (for program schools), service institutions and nonresidential child care institutions under this part shall be used only to purchase United States agricultural commodities and other foods for use in their food service under the National School Lunch Program, Child Care Food Program, or Summer Food Service Program for Children, as applicable. Such foods shall be limited to those necessary to meet the requirements set forth in § 210.10 of part 210 of this chapter, § 225.10 of part 225 of this chapter and § 226.10 of part 226 of this chapter, respectively. On or before disbursing funds to school food authorities (for program schools), service institutions and nonresidential child care institutions, State agencies and FNSRO's shall notify them of the reason for special disbursement, the purpose for which these funds may be used, and, if possible, the amount of funds they will receive.
( b ) Cash payments received under § 240.5 of this part shall be used only to pay donated-food processing and handling expenses of commodity schools.
( c ) Funds provided under this part shall be subject to 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.
[47 FR 15982, Apr. 13, 1982, as amended at 81 FR 66494, Sept. 28, 2016]
<Page>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.15

                           AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                     DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AT MARCH 1, 2005

         Stephen R. Hardis, the Chairman of the Board, receives an annual
retainer of $200,000, payable quarterly. Each director (other than Mr. Hardis
and Mary G. Puma) receives an annual retainer of $20,000 payable quarterly. In
addition, each director (other than Mr. Hardis or Ms. Puma) assuming
responsibility as Chairman of a committee of the Board of Directors receives an
annual retainer of $7,500. Non-employee directors other than Mr. Hardis also
receive cash fees for attendance at Board and committee meetings. Currently,
the meeting fees are: (1) $2,000 for attendance in person at a meeting of the
Board of Directors; (2) $1,000 for attendance at a meeting of any committee of
the Board of Directors; and (3) $1,000 for participation in a telephonic meeting
of the Board of Directors or committee of the Board of Directors. Fees are paid
only to committee members with respect to attendance at a committee meeting.
Non-employee directors also receive reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings.

         Non-employee directors also receive automatic grants and may be
eligible for discretionary grants under the 2000 Stock Plan, as amended on
December 18, 2003. The 2000 Stock Plan is filed as Exhibit 10.1 to this Form
10-K (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company's Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the Commission on March 8,
2004).
Filed 12/7/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 273

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Juan Manuel Palacio, III, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20170180 and 20170181

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

James A. Hope, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Samuel A. Gereszek, East Grand Forks, MN, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Palacio

Nos. 20170180 and 20170181

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Juan Manuel Palacio III appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.  Palacio argues the state presented insufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  State v. Gray, 2017 ND 108, ¶¶ 15–16, 893 N.W.2d 484 (affirming judgment where appellant failed to provide a trial transcript on appeal, making it “impossible for this Court to conduct a meaningful and intelligent review” whether the defendant preserved for appeal the issue of insufficiency of the evidence or whether sufficient evidence supported the verdict).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72971-72972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-28232]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8533]

Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International Law

Correction

    In notice document 2013-28232 appearing on page 70392, in the issue 
of Monday, November 25, 2013, make the following correction:

[[Page 72972]]

    In the second column, in the seventh line from the bottom, the 
entry ``mailto:KillTP@state.gov'' was inadvertently added to the 
document and is therefore deleted.

[FR Doc. C1-2013-28232 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### § 29.2316 Wet (W).

Any sound tobacco containing excessive moisture to the extent that it is in unsafe or doubtful-keeping order. Wet applies to any tobacco which is not damaged but which is likely to damage if treated in the customary manner. (See Rule 21, § 29.2412.) (For extremely wet or watered tobacco, see Rule 22, § 29.2413.)

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### Helen Di Palo, Respondent, v Joseph Di Palo, Jr., Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 28, 1978, as, after a hearing, denied his motion to change custody of the infant issue of the marriage from the plaintiff to himself. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The record supports the determination of Special Term. Mollen P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.