alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 137.247 What is the effective date of a retrocession? Unless the request for retrocession is rescinded, the retrocession becomes effective within the timeframe specified by the parties in the compact or funding agreement. In the absence of a specification, the retrocession becomes effective on: ( a ) The earlier of 1 year after: ( 1 ) The date of submission of the request, or
( 2 ) The date on which the funding agreement expires; or
( b ) Whatever date is mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the retroceding Self-Governance Tribe.
#### § 592.501 Records and reports.

For provisions relating to required records and reports, see part 501, subpart C, of this chapter. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered requirements arising pursuant to this part.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Paulson Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Karen L. Johannes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Karen L. Johannes  
|Karen L. Johannes      
|Chief Financial Officer
|Paulson Capital Corp.  
|March 27, 2009         

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Paulson Capital Corp. and will be retained by Paulson Capital Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.36 Effect of discharge from posthospital SNF care. If a beneficiary is discharged from a facility after receiving posthospital SNF care, he or she is not entitled to additional services of this kind in the same benefit period unless— ( a ) He or she is readmitted to the same or another facility within 30 calendar days following the day of discharge (or, before December 5, 1980, within 14 calendar days after discharge); or
( b ) He or she is again hospitalized for at least 3 consecutive calendar days.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Choi

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Choi							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

July 23, 2021

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary Wendy R. Sherman met with Republic of Korea (ROK) First Vice Foreign Minister Choi Jong Kun today in Seoul. Deputy Secretary Sherman and First Vice Foreign Minister Choi emphasized the importance of the U.S.-ROK Alliance for promoting peace, security, and prosperity in Northeast Asia, the Indo-Pacific region, and the world. The Deputy Secretary and the First Vice Foreign Minister discussed bilateral and multilateral cooperation to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, address the climate crisis, provide pandemic relief, and promote post-COVID-19 economic recovery. They also discussed the importance of U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral cooperation to address the global challenges of the 21st century.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonSouth Korea

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### § 137.342 What happens to funds remaining at the conclusion of a cost reimbursement construction project?

All funds, including contingency funds, remaining at the conclusion of the project are considered savings and may be used by the Self-Governance Tribe to provide additional services for the purpose for which the funds were originally appropriated. No further approval or justifying documentation is required before the expenditure of the remaining funds.
HomeSouth Africa

# South Africa

175 items

        -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Welcome Corps:  First Year of Refugee Private Sponsorship a Big Success	  January 19, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		This Week’s International Court of Justice Hearings	  January 10, 2024 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: South Africa	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Video Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Video Remarks to the AGOA Forum	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 3, 2023Johannesburg, South Africa 
        -    Press Statement  		1st Anniversary of Ethiopia’s Cessation of Hostilities Agreement	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Delegation Joins 20th AGOA Forum	  November 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui to Travel to South Africa and Nigeria for AGOA Forum, Creative Industries Events	  October 31, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Cape Town, South Africa: American International School of Cape Town: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 30, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Johannesburg/Pretoria, South Africa: American International School of Johannesburg: 2022-2023 Fact Sheet	  October 4, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Pandor	  September 26, 2023 

previous page1234…18next page

Back to Top
**Exhibit 24**POWER OF ATTORNEY     Each director and/or officer of Max & Erma’s Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), whose signature appears below hereby appoints Todd B. Barnum or William C. Niegsch,Jr., or either of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact, to sign, in his or her name and behalf andin any and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) for the fiscal yearended October 29, 2006, and likewise to sign and file any and all amendments, includingpost-effective amendments, to the Annual Report, and the Company hereby also appoints such personsas its attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with like authority to sign andfile the Annual Report and any amendments thereto in its name and behalf, each such person and theCompany hereby granting to such attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, andhereby ratifying all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 17th day of January, 2007.     Signature  Title   /s/ Todd B. Barnum Chairman, Chief Executive Officer   Todd B. Barnum and Director   /s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr. Executive Vice President, Chief   William C. Niegsch, Jr. Financial Officer, Treasurer,
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3186 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 618
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3186

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           September 18, 1996

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in Overland, 
Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sammy L. Davis 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Jeff Trandahl,

                                                Assistant to the Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 618

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3186

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 18, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Ester Clelia HOLT, Appellant, v. Ernest William HOLT, Jr., Appellee.

No. T-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 23, 1974.

*145Robert G. Alexander and Lester Makof-ka, Jacksonville, of Law Offices of Robert G. Alexander, for appellant.

Iven S. Lamb, Jr., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant herein, respondent below, seeks reversal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and contends that the amount of alimony and child support payments is inadequate and that the trial court erred in allocating to her the entire responsibility for making mortgage and utility payments on the parties’ home, as well -as all other payments incident to the upkeep of the home.

We have heard oral argument in this cause and have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs 'submitted by the parties herein. Upon our consideration thereof, we are of the opinr ion that, in light of the evidence concerning the appellant’s health and medical problems, the trial court erred in shouldering her with the sole responsibility for the upkeep and mortgage payments of the home, of which appellee still remains a tenant in common and in which his two minor children still reside. j -

Accordingly, we reverse that portion of paragraph 4 of the final judgment which provides that “the wife shall be responsible for making all mortgage, utility and other payments incident to the upkeep of - the home.” Under the factual circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would best be served by requiring appellee-husband to bear the responsibility of the entire mortgage "payments and other payments incident to the upkeep of the home, with the exception of the utility payments which should remain the responsibility of appellant.

The appellant’s petition for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $500.00.

Affirmed in part and reversed in 'part.'

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Russell Wayne KNOTT, a/k/a Rusty Holloway, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1979.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Sara Biesky Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

*688ANSTEAD, Justice,

dissenting:

The chief witness against the appellant at his robbery trial was a former co-defendant. The trial court permitted the appellant to inquire into the disposition of charges filed against the co-defendant arising out of the same incident. However, in a proffer it was shown that the witness also had other robbery charges pending against him in another division of the circuit court to which he had allegedly agreed to enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge in exchange for the state’s recommendation that any sentence be served concurrently with the sentence received in the case involving appellant. The trial judge refused to allow any inquiry as to the other case. We have previously held that such refusal constitutes prejudicial error mandating a new trial. *Lee v. State,*318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). While I realized that the prejudicial effect must be separately determined in each case, I am forced to conclude that the error here cannot be distinguished from that in *Lee, supra.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.1100 Basis and scope.

This subpart implements sections 1834(k)(1) and (k)(3) of the Act by specifying the payment methodology for comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility services covered under Part B of Title XVIII of the Act that are described at section 1861(cc)(1) of the Act.
# C_2006009EN.01001201.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4008 — Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV)

(2006/C 9/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Spanish and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4008. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4008. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 417.533 Part B carrier responsibilities. In paying for Part B services furnished to its enrollees by suppliers, the HMO or CMP must— ( a ) Determine the eligibility of individuals to receive those services through the HMO or CMP;
( b ) Make proper coverage decisions and appropriate payment as authorized under § 421.200 of this chapter for the services for which its Medicare enrollees are eligible; and
( c ) Carry out any other procedures that CMS may require.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 46230, Sept. 6, 1995]
#### ALLEN R. PYLE LANDCLEARING, INC., and Allen R. Pyle Trucking, Inc., Appellant, v. Frank FERNANDEZ, Trustee, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
Administrator, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D. C. 

# CEIVED OCT 0 5 2015 

## HFARING DOCKET
Federal Aviation Administration DOT Docket No. FAA-2014-0544 FAA Case No. 2014S0290047 Complainant vs. Judge Sullivan CHERIF DIALLO, Respondent.

COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENTMOTION FORJUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The Administratorherebyrequests that its Motion ForJudgment onthe Pleadings be supplemented to include the following: 1. Declaration ofTaneesha D. Marshall, Esq. (Exhibit 5)
Submitted this 30th day ofSeptember 2015.



# d~~

TANEESHA D. MARSHALL Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Request to SupplementMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings has been sent this dateby the following methods: miginal and one copy via certified mail: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Attention:Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591
one copyvia certified mail and facsimile: Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New JerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 One copy via certified and regular mail: CherifDiallo 263 W. 153'd St. Apt. 6D New York, NY 10039

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

## ISEP

. 

## 3

# o20151 DatedU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFTHE HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D. C. Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration DOT Docket No. FAA-2014-0544 FAA Case No. 2014S0290047 Complainant vs. Judge Sullivan CHERIF DIALLO, Respondent.
DECLARATIONPURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I, TaneeshaD. Marshall, declare as follows: I declare under the penalty ofperjurythat the foregoing facts are true and correct. I. I havebeen employed withthe FAA, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Atlanta, Georgia, since 2004 as an attorney. 2. I am currently assigned as lead and sole Agency counsel on the above referenced matter. 3. On February 4, 2015, the Agency served its Amended Complaint on the Respondent, Cherif Diallo, via regular mail and certified mail at his lastknown address providedto the Agency. 4. To date, the regular mail was not returned to the Agency for the Amended Complaint. 5. On September 15,2015, the Agency served its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings onthe Respondent via regular and certified mail at his last known address provided to the Agency. 6. To date, the regular mail has not been returned to the Agency for the Motion for Judgment onthe Pleadings. 7. I havemade multiple attempts to contact Mr. Diallo viatelephone since March 26, 2015 and havebeen unable to reach him. 8. The mostrecent attempt was on September 14,2015 and I left a voicemessage at his home telephone number (347) 664-8774 with myname and contact information. 9. Mr. Diallo has not contacted the Agency viamail, email, fax, telephone or any other



## -!~rrespondence **sin~**



# ~eesh~~ Dated September 30,2015 Government



### ~ 

### Exhibit 

# 1 

# c 

# I

**~** 1
§ 407.1 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* The supplementary medical insurance (SMI) program is authorized by Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act. ( 1 ) Section 1831 of the Act establishes the program.
( 2 ) Sections 1836 and 1837 set forth the eligibility and enrollment requirements.
( 3 ) Section 1838 specifies the entitlement periods, which vary depending on the time and method of enrollment and on the basis for termination.
( 4 ) Section 1843 sets forth the requirements for State buy-in agreements under which States may enroll, and pay the SMI premiums for, eligible individuals who are also eligible for cash assistance or Medicaid.
( 5 ) Section 104(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-87) specifies the limitations that apply to certain aliens and persons convicted of subversive activities.
( 6 ) Sections 1836(b) and 1837(n) of the Act provide for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs as described in section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Act under Part B beginning on or after January 1, 2023, for eligible individuals whose benefits under Medicare Part A and eligibility to enroll in Part B on the basis of ESRD would otherwise end with the 36th month after the month in which the individual receives a kidney transplant by reason of section 226A(b)(2) of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* This part sets forth the eligibility, enrollment, and entitlement requirements and procedures for the following: ( 1 ) Supplementary medical insurance. (The rules about premiums are in part 408 of this chapter.)
( 2 ) The immunosuppressive drug benefit provided for under sections 1836(b) and 1837(n) of the Act, hereinafter referred to as the Part B-Immunosuppressive Drug Benefit (Part B-ID).
[53 FR 47204, Nov. 22, 1988, as amended at 87 FR 66505, Nov. 3, 2022]
# ""LEIVE DATEi~3 

# STATE OF COLOFADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor Martha E. Rudolph, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment ofthe people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Colorado Department Located inGlendale, Colorado 

### ofPublicHealth http://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment March 22, 2010 Ms. Carol Rushin Acting Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region VIII 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Re: CDPHE Concurrence with Proposed NPL Notice of(partial) Deletion (NOIDp) forthe On-Post Central and Eastern Surface and Off-Post Surface Areas ofRocky Mountain Arsenal Dear Ms. Rushin: My staffhas reviewed the Draft Notice ofIntentto Partially Delete (NOID)p Areas ofthe RockyMountain Arsenal Site for the Central and Eastern Surface (CES) areas ofthe On-Post Operating Unit, and the Off-Post Surface (OPS) area. Thisreport summarizes the relevantprojeqct information documenting the•Completion ofthe remedial actions that were required by both the On-PokstRec6rd ofDecision (On-Post ROD),.and the Off-Post Record ofDecision (Off-Post ROD). All remedial actions required bythe RODs for structures and surface media (soil, surface water and sediment), have been completed in the Central 'and Eastern Surface Areas and the Off-Post Surface Areas identified in the draft NOIDp. CDPHEconcurs with EPA that this partial deletion pertains only to surface media. Groundwater remediation in these areas is not complete. The groundwater westofE Street mustremain on the NPL and continue to be treated by functioning water treatment systems currently in place. All groundwater in the Off-Post StudyArea mustremain on theNPL and continue to be treated by thefunctioning watertreatment systems currently in place. Based upon ourevaluation ofthe NOIDp andupon our observations as therequired ROD activities were implemented, the State concurs that all actions required under CERCLA have been implemented to protect human health and the environment in the areas proposed fordeletion. CDPHE looks forward to working with EPA toaddress any issues raised throughthe public comment process. Sincerely,

Howard Roitman Director Office ofEnvironmental Programs cc" ' Charlie Scharmann, RMA

..... Laura Williams, EPA

. . gei'shakely, Shell; Ken Conright,.TCHD

. T6m -Jackson,USFWS- , .. RichardL,'otiAGOý"' . ;

.. .'
. . """ Jack Lipschultz, DOJ Trevor Klotz, Sentinel Consulting
.. i ----- *---- Westlyn Erickson, RMA .- Ken Vogler, CDPHE

. 

# 11111I111111 Gary W. Baughman, CDPHE File RMA #31.1 •00049653 17825 - 1