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

§ 414.230 Determining a period of continuous use. ( a ) *Scope.* This section sets forth the rules that apply in determining a period of continuous use for rental of durable medical equipment.
( b ) *Continuous use.* ( 1 ) A period of continuous use begins with the first month of medical need and lasts until a beneficiary's medical need for a particular item of durable medical equipment ends.
( 2 ) In the case of a beneficiary receiving oxygen equipment on December 31, 2005, the period of continuous use for the equipment begins on January 1, 2006.
( c ) *Temporary interruption.* ( 1 ) A period of continuous use allows for temporary interruptions in the use of equipment.
( 2 ) An interruption of not longer than 60 consecutive days plus the days remaining in the rental month in which use ceases is temporary, regardless of the reason for the interruption.
( 3 ) Unless there is a break in medical necessity that lasts longer than 60 consecutive days plus the days remaining in the rental month in which use ceases, medical necessity is presumed to continue.
( d ) *Criteria for a new rental period.* If an interruption in the use of equipment continues for more than 60 consecutive days plus the days remaining in the rental month in which use ceases, a new rental period begins if the supplier submits all of the following information— ( 1 ) A new prescription.
( 2 ) New medical necessity documentation.
( 3 ) A statement describing the reason for the interruption and demonstrating that medical necessity in the prior episode ended.
( e ) *Beneficiary moves.* A permanent or temporary move made by a beneficiary does not constitute an interruption in the period of continuous use.
( f ) *New equipment.* ( 1 ) If a beneficiary changes equipment or requires additional equipment based on a physician's prescription, and the new or additional equipment is found to be necessary, a new period of continuous use begins for the new or additional equipment. A new period of continuous use does not begin for base equipment that is modified by an addition.
( 2 ) A new period of continuous use does not begin when a beneficiary changes from one stationary oxygen equipment modality to another or from one portable oxygen equipment modality to another.
( g ) *New supplier.* If a beneficiary changes suppliers, a new period of continuous use does not begin.
( h ) *Oxygen equipment furnished after the 36-month rental period.* A new period of continuous use does not begin under any circumstance in the case of oxygen equipment furnished after the 36-month rental period in accordance with § 414.226(h) until the end of the reasonable useful lifetime established for such equipment in accordance with § 414.210(h).
[56 FR 50823, Oct. 9, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 57111, Dec. 3, 1992; 71 FR 65935, Nov. 9, 2006; 73 FR 69937, Nov. 19, 2008; 83 FR 57072, Nov. 14, 2018]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          67,827
<SECURITIES>                                    59,356
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,520
<INVENTORY>                                    917,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,336,598
<PP&E>                                       1,656,568
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,113,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,041,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,090
<BONDS>                                        103,566
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,768
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,680,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,041,960
<SALES>                                      1,574,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,579,611
<CGS>                                          751,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,706,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (64,138)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (67,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd B. Barnum, Chairman and 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:

      (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.

Date: January 19, 2005

                                    /s/ Todd B. Barnum
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Todd B. Barnum
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
                                    Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kerry CUREAUX.

No. 67672.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1980.

In re State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Section A. No. 275-546.

Denied.

MARCUS, BLANCHE and WATSON, JJ., would grant the writ.
# C_2006010EN.01000202.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

in Case C-432/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Directive 89/106/EEC - Decision 3052/95/EC - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Construction products)

(2006/C 10/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-432/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and N. Ruiz, advogado) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take account of approval certificates issued by other Member States in a procedure, under Article 17 of the General Law on Urban Construction, adopted by Decree-Law No 38/382 of 7 August 1951, for approval of polyethylene pipes imported from those other Member States, and by not informing the Commission of such a measure, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and under Articles 1 and 4(2) of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take account of approval certificates issued by other Member States in a procedure, under Article 17 of the General Law on Urban Construction, adopted by Decree-Law No 38/382 of 7 August 1951, for approval of polyethylene pipes imported from those other Member States, and by not informing the Commission of such a measure, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and under Articles 1 and 4(2) of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

1

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE RICHARD A. GRAFF

______________________ 

2014-1288

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 

10/885,569.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MICHAEL K. MUTTER, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, 

of Falls Church, Virginia, argued for appellant. With him 

on the brief was D. RICHARD ANDERSON. Of counsel on the 

brief was PETER K. TRYNA, Peter K. Trzyna Law Office 

P.C., of Chicago, Illinois. 

JOSEPH MATEL, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, 

argued for appellee. With him on the brief were NATHAN 

K. KELLEY, Solicitor, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Deputy Solicitor, and AMY J. NELSON, Associate Solicitor.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 December 8, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
No. 99-8949.

#### Iredia *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2006074EN.01003401.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/34

---

Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Villa and Others v Parliament

(Case F-4/06)

(2006/C 74/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Renata Villa (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul decisions Nos 102494, 102494 and 102496 of 8 February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the European Parliament refused to reimburse to the applicants the excess premium resulting from the difference between the rights acquired during the years when they were affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities transferred to the Community scheme following a new calculation of the transfer of their pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decisions Nos 102494, 102494 and 102496 of 8 February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the European Parliament refused to reimburse to the applicants the excess premium resulting from the difference between the rights acquired during the years when they were affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities transferred to the Community scheme following a new calculation of the transfer of their pension rights;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main argument

In 1991, the applicants, who are officials of the European Parliament, transferred to the Community scheme the pension rights which they had acquired in Italy before entering the service of the Communities. The difference between the actual number of years of affiliation to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities resulting from the calculation of the premium in the Community scheme was determined in accordance with the general implementing provisions then applied by the Parliament, which did not align the premium with the number of years of affiliation in Italy.

Following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, the applicants submitted requests seeking to obtain a new calculation of the premium previously obtained, in reliance on Article 26(5) and (6) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. The requests were rejected and the applicants lodged complaints, which were also rejected by the appointing authority.

In their action, the applicants claim that there has been a breach of Article 26 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, and also of Article 1(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in both the new and the old versions.

They further maintain that the Parliament has also breached the principles of proper administration, of equal treatment, of non-discrimination, of the prohibition of unfair process, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of non-enrichment and also of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jul-31-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Jul-31-2000<CASH>                                               257,445<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                              0<ALLOWANCES>                                               0<INVENTORY>                                                0<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     286,062<PP&E>                                             1,148,978<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,006,808<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       488,099<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                589,708<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                              18,431<OTHER-SE>                                         (150,291)<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         488,099<SALES>                                                    0<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      51,144<CGS>                                                      0<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2,524,316<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (1,722,298)<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     4,980<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,478,152)<INCOME-TAX>                                         755,854<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,722,298)<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,722,298)<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.10)<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.10)</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3287

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

of Crawford, Nebraska.the Crawford National Fish Hatchery to the city
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3287

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

Crawford National Fish Hatchery to the city of

Crawford, Nebraska.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3287 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Crawford National

3 Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CRAWFORD NATIONAL FISH

5 HATCHERY TO THE CITY OF CRAWFORD, NE6 BRASKA.

7 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

9 of the Interior shall convey to the city of Crawford, Ne10 braska, without reimbursement, all right, title, and inter11 est of the United States in and to the property described

12 in subsection (b), for use by the city for a city park and

13 other public recreational purposes.

14 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

15 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Crawford

16 National Fish Hatchery, located in the city of Crawford,

17 Nebraska, consisting of 5.95 acres (more or less), and all

18 improvements and related personal property under the

19 control of the Secretary that is located on that property,

20 including buildings, structures, equipment, and all ease21 ments, leases, and water rights relating to that property.

22 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of

23 the property conveyed to the city of Crawford, Nebraska,

24 under this section is used by the city for any purpose other

25 than the uses authorized under subsection (a), all right,

26 title, and interest in and to all property conveyed under
3

•HR 3287 EH

1 this section shall revert to the United States. The city of

2 Crawford, Nebraska, shall ensure that all property that

3 reverts to the United States under this subsection is in

4 substantially the same or better condition as at the time

5 of conveyance to the city.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 412.540 Method of payment for preadmission services under the long-term care hospital prospective payment system. The prospective payment system includes payment for inpatient operating costs of preadmission services that are— ( a ) Otherwise payable under Medicare Part B;
( b ) Furnished to a beneficiary on the date of the beneficiary's inpatient admission, and during the calendar day immediately preceding the date of the beneficiary's inpatient admission, to the long-term care hospital, or to an entity wholly owned or wholly operated by the long-term care hospital; and ( 1 ) An entity is wholly owned by the long-term care hospital if the long-term care hospital is the sole owner of the entity.
( 2 ) An entity is wholly operated by a long-term care hospital if the long-term care hospital has exclusive responsibility for conducting and overseeing the entity's routine operations, regardless of whether the long-term care hospital also has policymaking authority over the entity.
( c ) Related to the inpatient stay. A preadmission service is related if— ( 1 ) It is diagnostic (including clinical diagnostic laboratory tests); or
( 2 ) It is nondiagnostic when furnished on the date of the beneficiary's inpatient admission; or
( 3 ) On or after June 25, 2010, it is nondiagnostic when furnished on the calendar day preceding the date of the beneficiary's inpatient admission and the hospital does not attest that such service is unrelated to the beneficiary's inpatient admission.
( d ) Not one of the following— ( 1 ) Ambulance services.
( 2 ) Maintenance renal dialysis services.
[75 FR 50416, Aug. 16, 2010]
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION








I, Michael E. Ricketson, certify that:














1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PAB Bankshares, Inc;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; andc.)
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; and5.
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 the 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; andb.)
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: March 10, 2004

By:
/s/ Michael E. RicketsonMichael E. Ricketson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer of the registrant)