alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 57.1 Overview. ( a ) The regulations in this part are designated “Health Insurance Providers Fee Regulations.”
( b ) The regulations in this part provide guidance on the annual fee imposed on covered entities engaged in the business of providing health insurance by section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), as amended by section 10905 of PPACA, and as further amended by section 1406 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or ACA). All references to section 9010 in this part 57 are references to section 9010 of the ACA. Unless otherwise indicated, all other references to subtitles, chapters, subchapters, and sections are references to subtitles, chapters, subchapters and sections in the Internal Revenue Code and the related regulations.
( c ) Section 9010(e)(1) sets an applicable fee amount for each year, beginning with 2014, that will be apportioned among covered entities with aggregate net premiums written over $25 million for health insurance for United States health risks. Generally, each covered entity is liable for a fee in each fee year that is based on its net premiums written during the data year in an amount determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the rules of this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1011 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1011

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
     construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 1995

  Mr. Sawyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
     construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 9423 (and after 
reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, 
due diligence, and public interest requirements of such section 13 and 
the Commission's procedures under such section, to extend the time 
required for commencement of construction for the project for up to a 
maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall take effect 
for the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by the 
Commission under such section 13) of the period required for 
commencement of construction of such project.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TERRANCE SALTERS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3117

[ October 3, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Tim Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

- 12036 CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
427 A.2d 1226

#### Commonwealth v. Kehoe, Appellant.

Submitted June 29, 1979.

Robert F. Pappano, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Frank T. Hazel, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WIEAND, ROBINSON and LOUIK, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation. President Judge Otto P. Robinson of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Judge Maurice Louik of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

This decision was reached following the death of Robinson, J.

Judgment affirmed.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 17

Relating to the treatment of Social Security under any constitutional

amendment requiring a balanced budget.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 23, 1995

Mr. FLANAGAN (for himself, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. DREIER, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr.

EWING, Mr. PAXON, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. BARR, Mr. TALENT, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr.

FRISA, Mr. WAMP, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr.

HASTERT, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. CRANE,

Mr. DELAY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr.

EHRLICH, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mr. NEY, Mr. WELLER, Mr. CAMP, Mr.

FORBES, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr.

BOEHNER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. MARTINI, Mr.

HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. HYDE, Mr. LEACH, Mr.

CHABOT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. WALKER, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GANSKE, Mr.

LONGLEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. HEINEMAN, Mrs. CUBIN,

and Mr. CHRYSLER), submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Rules

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Relating to the treatment of Social Security under any

constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, for the purposes of any constitutional

3 amendment requiring a balanced budget, the appropriate

4 committees of the House and the Senate shall report to
2

HCON 17 IH

1 their respective Houses implementing legislation to

2 achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts

3 or reducing the disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and

4 Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disabil5 ity Insurance Trust Fund to achieve that goal.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Shawn Williams, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 438]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was in the main recreation yard with approximately 300 other inmates when a correction officer observed him fighting with another inmate and making stabbing motions over the inmate’s head. When petitioner ignored the correction officer’s order to stop fighting, he was taken down in a body hold and placed in mechanical restraints. A weapon resembling an ice *973pick was later recovered. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, possessing a weapon, engaging in violent conduct, assaulting another inmate and creating a disturbance. He was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. Upon administrative appeal, the determination of guilt was upheld but the penalty was modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and use of force report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared them and witnessed petitioner engaged in the fight, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Bernier v Goord,*3 AD3d 803, 803 [2004]; *see also Matter of Dowdy v Goord,*2 AD3d 1249, 1250 [2003]). Petitioner’s claim that it was a case of mistaken identity and that he was not depicted on the videotape of the incident presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see e.g. Matter of Carter v Goord,*8 AD3d 771, 772 [2004]; *Matter of Brown v Selsky,*5 AD3d 905, 906 [2004]). In addition, we reject petitioner’s assertions regarding claimed deficiencies in the misbehavior report inasmuch as it was sufficiently detailed to provide him with notice of the charges so as to enable him to prepare a defense (see *Matter of Damage v Goord,*285 AD2d 724, 724 [2001], *appeal dismissed*97 NY2d 639 [2001]; *Matter of Quintana v Selsky,*268 AD2d 624, 625 [2000]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-225-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# L_2022161EN.01012101.xml

| 16.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/121

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 170 of 25 June 2019
  )

On page 87, Annex IV, Part I, Section 1 (APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL PRODUCTION CONTROL (MODULE A)):

Point 1.1(d) is deleted.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Keystone Financial, Inc. (the
Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and 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 and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the Registrant, including its consolidated 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 disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, 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 financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 14, 2008
    /s/ Rose M. DiMarcoRose M. DiMarcoChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 119 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 119

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 1995

Mr. Obey introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 104-31 (109 Stat. 280) is amended by striking ``November 13, 1995'' 
and inserting ``November 15, 1995''.
                                 <all>
```
39142.

#### WHITE v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Decided October 11, 1962.

*Houston White,*for plaintiff in error.

*Paul Webb, Solicitor General, Eugene L. Tiller, Wm. F. Buchanan,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The judgment of this court *(White v. State of Ga.,*105 Ga. App. 616, 125 SE2d 239), affirming the judgment of the superior court adjudging the defendant in contempt of court, having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on certiorari *(White v. State of Ga.,*218 Ga. 290, 127 SE2d 668), the said judgment of this court is vacated and the judgment of the superior court is reversed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Judges concur.*
#### Er Tai HE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 00-70651.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.**

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 John Ashcroft is substituted for Janet Reno as Attorney General pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Er Tai He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applica*319tions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where the BIA’s decision incorporates the IJ’s, we review the IJ’s decision. *Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). The IJ must give “a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility and ... a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” *Id.*

The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. The IJ pointed to the implausibility of He’s story and the contradictions between He’s testimony and the country conditions reports in making the adverse credibility finding. Absent credible evidence, He’s asylum application must fail. *See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS,*955 F.2d 1251, 1256-58 (9th Cir.1992).

In failing to qualify for asylum, He necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for -withholding of removal. *See Chen v. INS,*266 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9thCir.2001).

We do not address He’s Convention Against Torture claim because he did not raise it in his opening brief. *See United States v. Ullah,*976 F.2d 509, 514 (9thCir.1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
To: Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Request for Exemption Relative to Issuing Airworthiness 8130-3 Tags (Domestic and 

Export) per FAA Orders 8100.15 and 8130.21 

Problem Statement 

Many foreign and some domestic customers of Wencor, LLC, a world-wide distributor of aircraft 

parts, are demanding the issuance of 8130-3 Airworthiness Approval Tags for all standard parts. 

Typically, the FAA has authorized ODARs and ODAs to only apply the 8130-3 tags to PMA 

articles produced by our company. It has been incumbent upon Wencor to hire an independent 

DAR to perform this service. Wencor has both the FAA-approved Fabrication Inspection System 

(FIS) per 14 CFR Part 21, section 21.303(h) and a Total Aerospace Quality System, certified by 

a 3rd party to ISO 9001 and AS 91008. We have an effective Supplier Quality system and 

maintain complete lot traceability to supplier certifications and test reports. Since we have ISOcertified inspection procedures and FAA-delegated inspectors on-staff performing airworthiness 

inspections of our PMA parts, the additional activity of performing airworthiness inspections and 

certifying standard parts does not require additional capabilities. It would be much more cost 

effective and timely for us to use our full-time staff rather than to contract an outside DAR to 

perform this function. 

Exemption Requested 

Wencor is requesting that you allow full-time in-house FAA-designated personnel to issue 8130-

3 airworthiness tags for all standard parts (as defined by FAA documentation such as 14 CFR 

21.303(b)(4), AC 20-62 par. 4.b.(1) and AC 21-29, par. 3.b(8) & 3.1.) as long as the 

manufacturer is an approved supplier and full lot traceability has been maintained. 

Solution: 

We request an FAA exemption to mitigate the serious cost and schedule impact to our business 

as a U.S. aircraft parts manufacturer and distributor selling to the global marketplace. 

Please contact K. Dick Vaughn, Wencor FAA Specialist (e-mail: dvaughn@wencor.com or 

phone number 801-491-2515) for more details or questions on this proposal. 

Sincerely, 

Russ Adamson, President 

Wencor, LLC 

1625 North 1100 West 

Springville, UT 84663
exv10w7wiii



 





Exhibit 10.7(iii)




	 	 	 
	

	 	TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.






	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Date: April 6th, 2006

	Mr. Erez Golan, CEO
	 	 






Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement




Dear Sir,





	1.	 	Pursuant to Section 6.6 of your employment agreement with the TopSpin Medical (Israel)
Ltd. (the “Company”), dated as of December 9, 2002, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”;
all capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement), you are entitled to a class C Company Car and
were provided with a Citroen C5 (the “Car”).
	 
	2.	 	As a result of the reclassification of the new Citroen C5 currently used by you, the Car
is now classified as a class D car.
	 
	3.	 	This letter is to inform you that in accordance with the resolution of the Board of
Directors of the Company, dated as of April 6th, 2006, Section 6.6 to the
Employment Agreement shall be amended such that the Company Car you shall be entitled to
under the Employment Agreement shall be a class D car, effective as of January 1, 2006.
	 
	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement not specifically amended
herein shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
	 
	5.	 	Please confirm your consent to the abovementioned by returning an executed copy of this
letter.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	/s/ Michael Berman	 	 
	 

	 	 

TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.
	 	 






I accept and confirm the above:




	 	 	 
	/s/ Erez Golan 
	 	 
	 

Erez Golan, CEO
#### § 49.4254-2 Payment for toll telephone service or telegraph service in coin-operated telephones.

Where the tax on a toll telephone or radio telephone message or conversation, or a telegraph, cable, or radio dispatch or message is paid by inserting coins in a coin-operated telephone, the tax shall be computed to the nearest multiple of 5 cents, and where the tax is midway between multiples of 5 cents, the next highest multiple shall apply. In other words, one-half or a greater fraction of 5 cents shall be treated as 5 cents and a smaller fraction shall be ignored.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

51) ll-K-(B)-39 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 51 of 325 
P.2 

'AUg 

n"K-(B)-39 

NEW PARTICULATE CONTROL COST ALGORITHMS PREPARED BY 

PEDCo. 

Letter from T. Hogan, EEA to J. Pratapas, EPArSASD. 

July 1, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-39
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1031 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1031

                For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1995

 Mr. Ramstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

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

SECTION. 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF REQUESTS FOR 
              CLASSIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 204(c) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, the Attorney General may not disapprove a petition 
for classification of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of such Act, or an application for adjustment of the 
status of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 245 of such Act, on any 
ground relating to a determination that the marriage of Oscar Salas-
Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into for the purpose 
of evading the immigration laws.
    (b) Waiver of Inadmissibility.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), 
(B), and (C) of section 212(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, Oscar Salas-Velazquez may not be considered to be within a class 
of excludable aliens at any time on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act on any ground relating to--
            (1) a determination that the marriage of Oscar Salas-
        Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into for the 
        purpose of evading the immigration laws; or
            (2) the deportation of Oscar Salas-Velazquez on February 9, 
        1995.
                                 <all>
```