alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cinco recomendaciones para

recibir una mejor atención médica

2

4

3

5

1 Pregunte si tiene dudas o preocupación.

Haga preguntas y asegúrese de que entiende las respuestas. Escoja a un médico de confianza.

Invite a un familiar o amigo que pueda ayudarle a hacer preguntas y entender las respuestas.

Asegúrese de entender qué sucederá si

necesita tener cirugía.

Asegúrese de que su médico y su cirujano estén de acuerdo con lo que se hará durante la cirugía.

Recuerde que, en muchos casos, el médico y el cirujano no son la misma persona. Antes de su

cirugía, pregunte a su médico sobre quién será responsable de su cuidado mientras esté en el hospital. Pregunte a su cirujano qué le van a hacer, cuánto tiempo durará, qué sucederá y cómo se sentirá

después de la cirugia. Informe al cirujano, a los anestesiólogos y a las enfermeras si tiene alergias o si

alguna vez ha tenido una reacción adversa a la anestesia.

Hable con su doctor sobre cuál hospital es

mejor para sus necesidades de salud

Si puede escoger entre más de un hospital, pregúntele a su médico cuál ofrece la mejor atención y

los mejores resultados para su condición. Asegúrese de entender las instrucciones para obtener el

mejor cuidado de seguimiento cuando salga del hospital.

Asegúrese de obtener los resultados de

cualquier examen o análisis médico que le

hagan.

Pregunte a su médico o enfermera cuándo y de qué manera recibirá los resultados de los exámenes

realizados. No presuma que todo está bien si no los recibe cuando usted lo esperaba. Llame a su

médico y pídale sus resultados—es su derecho. Pregunte también qué significan los resultados con

respecto a su condicíon médica.

Asegúrese de mantener y llevar al médico

una lista de TODOS los remedios que toma.

Hable con su médico y con su farmacéutico sobre la importancia de mantener una lista de todos

los remedios que toma. Incluya los remedios que están disponibles sin receta médica. Infórmeles

acerca de cualquier tipo de alergia que tenga a medicamentos. Pregúnteles sobre los riesgos de

combinar los medicamentos y otros productos alimenticios. Lea siempre la etiqueta y las

advertencias de sus medicamentos. Asegúrese de que le han dado la medicina que le ha recetado el

médico y que sepa cómo usarla. Pregúntele al farmacéutico si la medicina se ve diferente a lo que

usted esperaba.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in partnership with American Hospital Association American Medical Association

Pub No. AHRQ 04-M006
#### § 984.9 Inshell walnuts.

*Inshell walnuts* means walnuts the kernels of which are contained in the shell.
162 So.2d 11

#### FIESTA FOODS, INC. v. Gordon C. OGDEN, Jr., d/b/a Cremeo Products Company.

No. 47147.

March 31, 1964.

In re: Gordon C. Ogden, Jr, applying for certiorari or writ.of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 159 So.2d 577.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, the judgment complained of is correct.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParticleDrilling Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Chris Boswell, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ J. CHRIS BOSWELL      |             |   |   |
|---------------------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| J. Chris Boswell          |             |   |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |             |   |   |
| * *                  |             |   |   |
| Date:                     | February 6, 2007 |   |   |
|                           |                  |        |        |  |  |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Particle DrillingTechnologies, Inc. and will be retained by Particle DrillingTechnologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### PEOPLE v. JONES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York.

Hugh Jones was convicted of violating New York Sanitary Code, § 181, prohibiting the discharge of smoke, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, CARR, RICH, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Henry M. Kidder, of New York City (P. L. Anderson, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Martin H. Murphy, of New York City (Herman Stiefel, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.

BURR, J.

I am constrained to dissent in this case. The ordinance in question is a health regulation. In People v. New York Edison Co., 159 App. Div. 786, 788, 144 N. Y. Supp. 707, 709, defendant demurred to the information upon the ground that the ordinance was unconstitutional, and the court below sustained the demurrer, “holding in effect that it forbids the discharge of smoke which would not injure property or affect the public health or comfort.” The Appellate Division in the First Department held this to be too narrow a construction, and said the “provisions should not be construed literally, especially since that might render them void.” “It is evident that the object of this enactment was the prevention of the discharge of smoke of such a character and in such quantities that it might injuriously affect the public health or comfort, or injure property, and the court would not be warranted in convicting for a violation of this section, excepting on evidence from which an inference to that effect might be drawn.” 159 App. Div. 795, 144 N. Y. Supp. 714. Such evidence is wholly wanting in this case.

See, also, People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 159 App. Div. 329, 144 N. Y. Supp. 699.
#### Thelma R. Johnson, Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 43986.)

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the Memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Certain finding of fact and conclusion of law disapproved and reversed and new finding and conclusion made. Memorandum: The claimant’s expert testified that the fair market value was $31,700, the State’s expert placed a value of $21,700 and the court made an award of $28,000, without making findings to indicate how it arrived at this figure. We

*694said in *Moore*v. *State of New York*(23 A D 2d 525) that the court should set forth its findings with respect to the different factors it considered in arriving at the final award. This would have given us a sounder basis for review. We note that the property was assessed for $6,500 and that the deed shows claimant purchased it in 1948 for approximately $15,000. We reduce the award by utilizing the capitalization approach. In their appraisals by this method of valuation the experts for both sides agreed on the annual gross income of the property but claimant’s net income was lower than the State’s figure. Claimant valued the land at $8,800 and the State at $3,000; we fix the value at $5,900. By using the claimant’s net income of $2,505, her expert’s return of 5% in determining the amount of income attributable to land (which seems low to us but is the only figure supported by the record), and the State’s capitalization rate of 11.5%, which is reasonable for the property in question, the record supports a value of $25,117. Accordingly, we modify the judgment by reducing the award from $28,000 to $25,117. (Appeal and cross appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in favor of claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present■—-Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000761236
<NAME>                        NATIONAL PROPERTIES INVESTMENT TRUST

       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              12/31/98
<PERIOD-START>                                 4/1/98
<PERIOD-END>                                   6/30/98
<CASH>                                          1,224
<SECURITIES>                                  119,592
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                          6,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                124,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,746
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,790,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  124,539
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                (93,617)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,617)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        


</TABLE>
•^CKtTOPFRArinAiQ '^trOPfRATiONS 

•' Alwaysdo what you arc afraid to do." Emerson „•'' ^ ^•'-^ ^ ' •--''2- 00 

13 February 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

US Dept. Of Transportation 

Docket # FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

-W-120140-- ---' - - — - - . 

Washington, DC 20590 

Gentlemen: 

My family and I live in the Lansing, Michigan, area and fly on average, once per month. One of our main 

destinations is Minneapolis-St. Paul to visit our older daughter who is completing a medical residency 

there. 

• r 

Recently, two very close friends moved to the Washington D.C. area. Until Sun Country began flying 

from Lansing to both of these destinations, we have never flown from Lansing; rather we would drive to 

either Detroit or Flint, a much greater distance. Now with Lansing being a viable option, we are minutes 

from the airport here and are now utilizing it's option. Sun Country has made this possible. 

Perhaps from a purely selfish perspective, we would hope Sun Country is allowed to continue to land at 

Reagan in Washington. My family and I will fly both west and east from Lansing well into the foreseeable 

future with Sun Country. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Edward J. Brown 

2145 Haslett Rd. 

Williamston, Ml 48895 

(517)655-2729
#### § 900.118 Costs.

The parties jointly shall pay for the stenographic record. A copy of the record shall be furnished by the parties to the arbitrator and shall be forwarded by him to the Administrator, ultimately to be filed in the office of the hearing clerk. The arbitrator shall not receive compensation for parties to the dispute.
----

----

|   | In connection with the Annual Report of Tamm Oil and Gas Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wiktor Musial, Principal Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |         (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. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                                                     | /s/ Wiktor Musial |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
|   | Principal Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer |

| TAMM OIL AND GAS                          |              |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------|
|                                      |              |
| By:                                       | /s/ Wiktor Musial |   |
| Wiktor MusialPresidentDate: June 28, 2010 |              |

| By:                      | /s/ Wiktor Musial |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Wiktor Musial, President |              |

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-AR9 Trust(the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a  materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3447 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde and phenol, hydrogen 4-cyclohexene1,2-dicarboxylate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde and phenol, hydrogen 4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-PROPENOIC ACID, POLYMER WITH 

4 (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE, FORMALDEHYDE 

5 AND PHENOL, HYDROGEN 4-CYCLOHEXENE6 1,2-DICARBOXYLATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3447 IS 

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.12 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde and 

phenol, hydrogen 4-cyclohexene-1,2- 

dicarboxylate (provided for in subheading 

3907.30.00) (CAS No. 170714–28–0) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### § 97.156 Addresses.

Attorneys and agents practicing before the Plant Variety Protection Office shall notify the Office in writing of any change of address. The Office shall address letters to any person at the last address received.
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### § 97.15 Assigned varieties and certificates.

In case the whole or a part interest in a variety is assigned, the application shall be made by the owner or one of the persons identified in § 97.13. However, the certificate may be issued to the assignee, or jointly to the owner and the assignee, when a part interest in a variety is assigned.

[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 17189, Apr. 4, 1995]
Subpart 1401.1 - Purpose, Authority,

Issuance

Parent topic: PART 1401 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACQUISITION REGULATION

SYSTEM

1401.105-3 Copies.

Copies of the Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR) and Department-wide

internal guidance may be obtained from the Office of Acquisition and Property Management, Office

of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street (MS 2607-MIB), NW., Washington,

DC 20240. Additional information on DOI may be obtained on the Internet at

http://www.doi.gov/pam.
#### § 981.413 Roadside stand exemption.

The term *at retail at a roadside stand* as used in § 981.13 shall be defined to mean sales for home use and not for resale which are not in excess of 100 pounds net kernel weight to any one customer per day. Sales of almonds at certified farmers' markets in compliance with section 1392 of the regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture shall be construed as “roadside” sales for the purpose of § 981.13 where these conditions are met.

[50 FR 30264, July 25, 1985]
430.070 Definitions.       *ACO,* as used in this part and in FAR part 30, means *administrative contracting officer* as described in FAR part 42.    **Parent topic:** PART 430 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7515

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY WHITAKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-372-A, CA-98-408-A)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Joan Shasky, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion seeking a reduction of his sentence, which the

district court properly construed as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

because the § 2255 motion was barred by the one-year limitations

period. See Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir.

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Morton Tabak et al. Respondents, v Martha Steele, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Submitted September 4, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d 244.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.