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



Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of I-Flow Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Donald
M. Earhart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/  Donald M. Earhart

Donald M. Earhart
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of I-Flow Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I James
R. Talevich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                         
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/   James R. Talevich

James R. Talevich
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
- Program Home
- Key Topics
- Notes and Notices

HomeOffice of Foreign Missions...Foreign Mission Property Program

# 									Foreign Mission Property Program							

In 1982, the Congress enacted the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301-4316, reaffirming the Federal government’s jurisdiction over the operation of foreign missions and international organizations in the United States. The Act established an Office of Foreign Missions within the Department of State to review and control the operations of foreign missions in the United States and the benefits that are made available to them. It empowers the Office of Foreign Missions to set the terms and conditions whereby benefits may be provided and sets forth the mechanism and criteria under which the location of foreign missions in the District of Columbia are to be decided. Section 206 of the Foreign Mission Act establishes procedures and criteria governing the location, replacement, or expansion of chanceries in the District of Columbia.

Under the Foreign Missions Act, OFM’s Property Program manages all acquisitions, including leases, additions, and sales of real property by foreign missions to assure that it is consistent with national security interests, reciprocity, and applicable local and international law. Those foreign governments not providing the United States with substantially equivalent property rights are not permitted to purchase real estate for their diplomatic or consular posts. In addition, the Property Section provides general guidance to foreign missions, local governments, attorneys, and real estate brokers regarding property taxation, zoning, and other related matters. Finally, the Property Section oversees the preservation and maintenance of those foreign mission properties with which the United States no longer maintains diplomatic relations.

Back to Top
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00399-CR

Jeff P. Wright

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1405168D)

November 3, 2016

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments

of the trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 212.6 Rules and procedures to protect benefits. The following provisions apply if an account review shows that a benefit agency deposited a benefit payment into an account during the lookback period. ( a ) *Protected amount.* The financial institution shall immediately calculate and establish the protected amount for an account. The financial institution shall ensure that the account holder has full and customary access to the protected amount, which the financial institution shall not freeze in response to the garnishment order. An account holder shall have no requirement to assert any right of garnishment exemption prior to accessing the protected amount in the account.
( b ) *Separate protected amounts.* The financial institution shall calculate and establish the protected amount separately for each account in the name of an account holder, consistent with the requirements in § 212.5(f) to conduct distinct account reviews.
( c ) *No challenge of protection.* A protected amount calculated and established by a financial institution pursuant to this section shall be conclusively considered to be exempt from garnishment under law.
( d ) *Funds in excess of the protected amount.* For any funds in an account in excess of the protected amount, the financial institution shall follow its otherwise customary procedures for handling garnishment orders, including the freezing of funds, but consistent with paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
( e ) *Notice.* The financial institution shall issue a notice to the account holder named in the garnishment order, in accordance with § 212.7.
( f ) *One-time account review process.* The financial institution shall perform the account review only one time upon the first service of a given garnishment order. The financial institution shall not repeat the account review or take any other action related to the order if the same order is subsequently served again upon the financial institution. If the financial institution is subsequently served a new or different garnishment order against the same account holder, the financial institution shall perform a separate and new account review.
( g ) *No continuing or periodic garnishment responsibilities.* The financial institution shall not continually garnish amounts deposited or credited to the account following the date of account review, and shall take no action to freeze any funds subsequently deposited or credited, unless the institution is served with a new or different garnishment order, consistent with the requirements of this part.
( h ) *Impermissible garnishment fee.* The financial institution may not charge or collect a garnishment fee against a protected amount. The financial institution may charge or collect a garnishment fee up to five business days after the account review if funds other than a benefit payment are deposited to the account within this period, provided that the fee may not exceed the amount of the non-benefit deposited funds.
[76 FR 9955, Feb. 23, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 32109, May 29, 2013]
HomeAssisted Schools...Amman, Jordan: American Community School: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Amman, Jordan: American Community School: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 29, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +962-6-581-3944 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Mike Emborsky 
        -  E-mail: school@acsamman.edu.jo | Website: www.acsamman.edu.jo| Special needs information can be found www.acsamman.edu.jo/elementary-school/learning-support. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Amman- 2024 Special Needs Profile-Jordan, Amman) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **American Community School**(ACS) is an independent, coeducational day school which offers an American educational program from early years program (age four) through grade 12 for students of all nationalities. The school was founded in 1955. The school year comprises two semesters extending from end of August through mid-January and from mid January through early June. The school is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

JordanOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
# L_2020244EN.01001701.xml

| 29.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 244/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/1116

of 24 July 2020

appointing a member of the Court of Auditors

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal by the Republic of Austria,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The term of office of Mr Oskar HERICS expired on 29 February 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The term of office of Mr Oskar HERICS expired on 29 February 2020.

| (2) | A new member should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A new member should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Helga BERGER is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2026.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2020.

For the Council

The President

M. ROTH

---

(1)  Opinion of 8 July 2020 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

---
#### § 601.526 Revocation of powers of attorney and tax information authorizations.

The revocation of the authority of a representative covered by a power of attorney or tax information authorization filed in an office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms shall in no case be effective prior to the giving of written notice to the proper official that the authority of such representative has been revoked.

[34 FR 6432, Apr. 12, 1969, as amended at 45 FR 7259, Feb. 1, 1980]
#### THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[48 C. Cls., 227; 237 U. S., 202.]

*On*Plaintiffs’ *Appeal.*

The railroad carries Government property and troops from Portland to San Francisco without breaking freight at Roseville Junction. From Roseville Junction to San Francisco the defendants pay for the service at through rates. The railroad seeks to recover at local rates. The only question in the case is as to the proper rate to be applied on through shipments to the service from Roseville Junction to San Francisco.

The court below decides:

I. A part of the claimant’s transportation route (i. e., from Portland to Roseville Junction) was constructed under the act 25th July, 1862, *H Stat. L.,*239, which provided that, in consideration of Government aid, Government property and troops should be transported free of charge. The remainder of the route (i. e., from Roseville Junction to San Francisco) was constructed under the act 1st July, 1862, *1Z Stat. L.,*489, which provided that the Government should have the use and service of the road at *“fair cmd reasonable rates of compensation.”*The freight service rendered being over both roads by a party operating both, and being in fact through service from Portland to San Francisco, the freight must rest upon a proportionate mileage basis.

II. It is settled that where railroad service is rendered to the Government by the land-grant roads, “ *through service ”*is to be computed at through rates; and “ *local service ”*at local rates; but where the service was in fact through service, an unbroken shipment from Portland to San Francisco, the fact that the service from Portland to Roseville Junction was a *“free-hml”*service, under the act 25th July, 1866, did not convert the service from Roseville Junction to San Francisco into a local service nor did it entitle the railroad to the local rate.

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Chibe Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 12,1915.
§ 3.4 Approval of claims not in excess of $25,000. ( a ) Claims not exceeding $25,000 and not otherwise requiring consultation with the Department of Justice pursuant to 28 CFR 14.6(b) shall be approved, disapproved, or compromised by the head of the bureau or office or his designee, taking into consideration the recommendation of the legal division.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Lazzeri, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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), as applicable, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Date:    November 7, 2007
                                        /s/ Robert Lazzeri
                                        ------------------
                                        Robert Lazzeri
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Director
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000061718-JAN-201308:28 AM
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 42330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Information Card Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 6, 2009, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Information Card Foundation has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ACSEL, Paris, 
France; and Kynetx, Lehi, UT have been added as parties to this 
venture. Also, Figlo, Capell a/d Yessel, The Netherlands has withdrawn 
as a party to this venture. In addition, Parity Communications, Inc. 
has changed its name to Azigo, Inc., Needham, MA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 17, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24037).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-19884 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132352 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. WILLIAM MILLER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 132352 COA: 259992 Wayne CC: 03-325030-NF ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and

PT WORKS, INC., Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
we REMAND this case to th e Court of Appeals to dete rmine whether PT Works may properly be incorporated solely under the Business Corporations Act and not the Professional Services Corporations Act, a nd, once that determ ination is made, to reconsider (if necessary) whether physical th erapy provided by PT Works was “lawfully
rendered” under MCL 500.3157.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

t0321 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2007

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

131531(53) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

LIBERTY HILL HOUSING 

CORPORATION,

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 SC: 131531 

v COA: 258752 

Mich Tax Tribunal: 00-298536 

CITY OF LIVONIA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_______________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by Homes for Autism for leave to 

file a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 3, 2007 

 Clerk
Order entered September 30, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01613-CV

MIKOB PROPERTIES, INC., ALLAN KLEIN, AND MITCHELL KOBERNICK,

Appellants

V.

DAVID JOACHIM AND INTERNATIONAL REALTY CONCEPTS, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-01602

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ counsel’s September 17, 2014 motion for withdrawal of counsel. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Friedman & Feiger, L.L.P. and Ryan K. Lurich as counsel of 

record for appellees.

Because a corporate entity may only appear in this Court through an attorney, we 

ORDER appellee International Realty Concepts, Inc. to notify the Court, within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order, of the name, State Bar number, mailing and e-mail addresses, 

and telephone number of new counsel. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 

937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send appellees a copy of this order and all future 

correspondence to:

David Joachim

International Realty Concepts, Inc.

7575 San Felipe Street, Suite 300

Houston, Texas 77063

(713) 972-1220.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Perry J. Moutray, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 271]

Appeal by the *677defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Miller, J), rendered January 21, 2004, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v*California, 386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14900 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 2 4 6 - C R - C L S - HG D U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K E R I T Y W A R R E N T A R T T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju l y 16, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S a m ue l R . H ol m e s , appoi nt e d c ouns e l f orK e r i T y w a rr e n T a r tt , ha s f i l e d am ot i on t o w i thdr a w on appe a l s uppor t e d by abr i e f pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o i ssu es o f arg u ab l e m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED a nd T artt ’ s co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .
#### § 22.11 Judicial review.

Action taken pursuant to section 602 of the Title VI is subject to judicial review as provided in section 603 of the Title VI.