alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 417.564 Apportionment and allocation of administrative and general costs. ( a ) *Costs not directly associated with providing medical care.* Enrollment, marketing, and other administrative and general costs that benefit the total enrollment of the HMO or CMP and are not directly associated with furnishing medical care must be apportioned on the basis of a ratio of Medicare enrollees to the total HMO or CMP enrollment.
( b ) *Costs significantly related to providing medical services.* ( 1 ) The following administrative and general costs, which bear a significant relationship to the services furnished, are not apportioned to Medicare directly; they must be allocated or distributed to the HMO or CMP components and then apportioned to Medicare in accordance with §§ 417.552 through 417.560: ( i ) Facility costs.
( ii ) Interest expense.
( iii ) Medical record costs.
( iv ) Centralized purchasing costs.
( v ) Accounting and data processing costs.
( vi ) Other administrative and general costs that are not included in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) The allocation or distribution process must be as follows: ( i ) If a separate entity or department of an HMO or CMP performs administrative functions the benefit of which can be quantitatively measured (such as centralized purchasing and data processing), the total allowable costs of this entity or department must be allocated or distributed to the components of the HMO or CMP in reasonable proportion to the benefits received by these components.
( ii ) If a separate entity or department of an HMO or CMP performs administrative functions the benefit of which cannot be quantitatively measured (such as facility costs), the total allowable costs of this entity or department must be allocated or distributed to the components of the HMO or CMP on the basis of a ratio of total incurred and distributed costs per component to the total incurred and distributed costs for all components.
( iii ) For the costs incurred under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section that include personnel costs, the organization must be able to identify the person hours expended for each administrative task and the rate of pay for those persons performing the tasks. Administrative tasks performed and rate of pay for the persons performing those tasks must match in terms of the skill level needed to accomplish those tasks. This information must be made available to CMS upon request.
( c ) *Costs excluded from administrative costs.* In accordance with section 1861(v) of the Act, the following costs must be excluded from administrative costs: ( 1 ) Donations.
( 2 ) Fines and penalties.
( 3 ) Political and lobbying activities.
( 4 ) Charity or courtesy allowances.
( 5 ) Spousal education.
( 6 ) Entertainment.
( 7 ) Return on equity.
[60 FR 46231, Sept. 6, 1995, as amended at 75 FR 19803, Apr. 15, 2010]
# C_2006154EN.01001204.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria) — Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-241/04) and Acquedotto Nicolay SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-242/04)

(Joined Case C-241/04 and C-242/04) (1)

1

(2006/C 154/27)

Language of the case: Italian.

Language of the case: Italian.

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.08.2004.

1

---
NOx Formation Project 

Analyze Phase

John Hausman

March 4, 2008
1
Test Plan

2
Data Collection Plan

 All NOx Data will be collected by Barr Engineering in 

accordance to our Test Schedule. Furnace Conditions will be 

3

changed by Jeff Jones. 

 All other data will be exported post-test period from our PI 

historian into Excel/Minitab for analyses. 
Minitab Correlation Output – 4 Day Stack Test

4
Boxplot of the 4 Stacks – All Conditions

200

175

150

125

Boxplot of Stack 1, Stack 2, Stack 3, Stack 4

5

Stack 1 Stack 2 Stack 3 Stack 4

125

100

75

50

Da

t

a
Furnace Settings per Condition

Condition 2 – Maximum Tons, Maximum Airflow, 2240°

Condition 3 – 420 lt/hr, Maximum Airflow, 2240°

Condition 4 – 420 lt/hr, Maximum Airflow, 2350°

6

Condition 7 – Maximum Tons, Maximum Airflow, 2200°

Condition 8 – 420 lt/hr, Indexed (less airflow), 2300°

Condition 12 – Maximum Tons, Maximum Airflow, 2350°
190

180

170

160

150

140

S

t

a

c

k

1

Boxplot of Stack 1

7

Condition 9Condition 8Condition 7Condition 6Condition 5Condition 4Condition 3Condition 2

Condition 12Condition 11Condition 10

140

130

120

110

Condition
140

130

120

110

S

t

a

c

k

2

Boxplot of Stack 2

8

Condition 9Condition 8Condition 7Condition 6Condition 5Condition 4Condition 3Condition 2

Condition 12Condition 11Condition 10

100

90

80

Condition
110

100

90

S

80

t

a

c

k

3

Boxplot of Stack 3

9

Condition 9Condition 8Condition 7Condition 6Condition 5Condition 4Condition 3Condition 2

Condition 12Condition 11Condition 10

80

70

60

Condition
90

80

70

S

60

t

a

c

k

4

Boxplot of Stack 4

10

Condition 9Condition 8Condition 7Condition 6Condition 5Condition 4Condition 3Condition 2

Condition 12Condition 11Condition 10

50

40

Condition
Nox (lb/hr) vs chamber temp

100

120

140

160

180

200

N

o

x (lb

/

h

r)

stack 1 stack 2 stack 3 stack 4

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

2350 2265 2240 2200

chamber temp

N

o

x (lb

/

h

r)
+1/4" After Tumble vs TEMP

96.2

96.4

96.6

96.8

%+1/4"

12

95.4

95.6

95.8

96

2350 2265 2240 2200

Temperature

%+1/4"
Average Compression vs Chamber TEMP

530

540

550

560

A

v

g

C

o

m

pression, lbs

13

480

490

500

510

520

2350 2265 2240 2200

Chamber Temps

A

v

g

C

o

m

pression, lbs
-300 lb Compression vs Chamber TEMP

5

6

7

8

9

%-300 lb

s

14

0

1

2

3

4

2350 2265 2240 2200

Temperature

%-300 lb

s
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2015

No. 04-14-00358-CV

Juanita SPRUTE, M.D. and Jefferson Family Practice Associates,

Appellants

v.

Arnold L. LEVEY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-02406

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellants and Cross-Appellee’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs is 

GRANTED. The appellants reply brief is due on March 3, 2015 and the cross-appellee brief is 

due on March 13, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In re Alfred J. GAMBLE v. Ida Bernice GAMBLE. Ex parte Alfred J. Gamble.

SC 906.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 25, 1974.

Ball, Ball, Matthews & Lamar, Tabor R. Novak, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.

No brief for respondent.

McCALL, Justice.

Petition of Alfred J. Gamble for Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Gamble v. Gamble, 53 Ala.App. 168, 298 So.2d 254.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, BLOODWORTH and JONES, JJ., concur.
# C_2005223EN.01000401.xml

| 10.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3913 — 3i/Aviapartner)

(2005/C 223/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 September 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 English 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 32005M3913. 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 32005M3913. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 403.815 Special rules concerning States. ( a ) *Optional State payment of enrollment fee.* ( 1 ) A State may enter into payment arrangements with endorsed sponsors to provide payment of some or all of endorsed discount card programs' enrollment fees for some or all of the State's individuals described in § 403.810(a) who are not transitional assistance enrollees, provided the enrollment fees are paid directly by the State to the endorsed sponsor.
( 2 ) Expenditures made by a State for enrollment fees described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must not be treated as State expenditures for which Federal matching payments are available under titles XIX or XXI of the Act.
( b ) *Optional State payment of coinsurance.* ( 1 ) A State may enter into payment arrangements with pharmacies to provide payment of some or all of coinsurance amounts described in § 403.808(e) for some or all of the State's transitional assistance enrollees, provided the coinsurance amounts are paid directly by the State to the pharmacy.
( 2 ) Expenditures made by a State for coinsurance described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must not be treated as State expenditures for which Federal matching payments are available under titles XIX or XXI of the Act.
( c ) *Coinsurance for Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries.* For transitional assistance enrollees who are qualified Medicare beneficiaries, any coinsurance liability under § 403.808(e) must not be treated as Medicare cost-sharing coinsurance, under section 1905(p)(3)(B) of the Act, for which a State would otherwise be required to pay.
( d ) *State data.* ( 1 ) A State must provide data on a monthly basis in an electronic format as determined necessary by the Secretary to effectuate the verification of beneficiary eligibility for the Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Card and Transitional Assistance Program.
( 2 ) Expenditures made by a State in complying with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section will be treated as State expenditures for which Federal matching payments are available under section 1903(a)(7) of the Act.
# C_2006108EN.01001803.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Verborgh v Commission

(Case T-26/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

(2006/C 108/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jacques Verborgh (Aalter, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and S. Pilette, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

:

Re:

Application for, primarily, annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002 setting the applicant's final classification at Grade A7, step 3, and annulment, as far as is necessary, of the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint and, as a subsidiary plea, the production of certain documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.

1

---
# C_2005273EN.01000201.xml

| 4.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 October 2005

(2005/C 273/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2023 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4623 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67665 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5360 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5455 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 73,69 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8060 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9562 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5737 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,595 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,54 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9791 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6512 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,038 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6224 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6037 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4161 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3207 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7108 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0365 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 250,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0695 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7200 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 161,26 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,539 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,000 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,038 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2023

JPY

Japanese yen

139,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4623

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67665

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5360

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5455

ISK

Iceland króna

73,69

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8060

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9562

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5737

CZK

Czech koruna

29,595

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,54

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9791

RON

Romanian leu

3,6512

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,038

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6224

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6037

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4161

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3207

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7108

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0365

KRW

South Korean won

1 250,63

ZAR

South African rand

8,0695

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7200

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 161,26

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,539

PHP

Philippine peso

66,000

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3200

THB

Thai baht

49,038

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2006154EN.01000601.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/6

---

Appeal brought on 27 March 2006 by the Republic of Finland against the order made on 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-163/06 P)

(2006/C 154/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Finland (Agent: E. Bygglin)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities and declare Finland's action under Article 230 EC admissible and remit the main action to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in which the Commission should be ordered to reimburse Finland also the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities and declare Finland's action under Article 230 EC admissible and remit the main action to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in which the Commission should be ordered to reimburse Finland also the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Republic of Finland

Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in considering that the contested letters of the Commission did not contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230 EC.

In Finland's view, the contested letters of the Commission contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230 EC.

By the contested decision the Commission in fact denied Finland the opportunity to make a conditional payment within the meaning of case-law of the Court of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects for Finland which affect Finland's interests and clearly change Finland's legal position, as required by the case-law concerning the application of Article 230 EC. In addition, the contested decision caused a loss of rights for Finland and is thus manifestly adverse to Finland.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3364 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 452
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3364

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1996

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

                             June 20, 1996

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 235 North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the 
  ``William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    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 and United States courthouse located at 235 
North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William J. Nealon Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Linda Nave,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 452

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3364

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 235 North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the 
  ``William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 20, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Lawrence Edris QUARTERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1888.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1981.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Gerald D. Hubbart, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

We reject the argument presented by defendant Quarterman in which he asks us to hold that when reporter Clarence Jones parked an old car on Interstate-95 in order to film the car during its anticipated theft he consented to the taking. In *Lowe v. State,*44 Fla. 449, 32 So. 956, 957 (1902), the court disposed of a similar contention by stating:

> [A] taking by the voluntary consent of the owner, or his authorized servant or agent, even though with a felonious intent, does not constitute larceny. But where the criminal design originates with the accused, and the owner does not, in person or by an agent or servant, suggest the design, nor actively urge the accused on to the commission of the crime, the mere fact that such owner, suspecting that the accused intends to steal his property, in person or through a servant or agent, exposes the property, or neglects to protect it, or furnishes facilities for the execution of the criminal design, under the expectation that the accused will take the property or avail himself of the facilities furnished, will not amount to a consent in *1160law, even though the agent or servant of such owner by his instructions appears to cooperate in the execution of the crime. 1 Bish. New Cr. Law, § 262; *Alexander v. State,*12 Tex. 540; *Dodge v. Brittain,*[19 Tenn.] Meigs, 84. See, also, note to *Connor*v. *People*(Colo.Sup.) [18 Colo. 373] 33 P. 159, 25 L.R.A. 341, 36 Am.St.Rep. 295.

We agree.

Affirmed.
#### § 37.91 Definitions.

Definitions provided in § 37.2 will have the same meaning in this subpart. Any term defined in the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-164, as amended) and not defined in § 37.2 or this section will have the meaning given it in the Act. As used in this subpart:

*ATS* means American Thoracic Society.

*ERS* means European Respiratory Society.

*FET* means forced expiratory time, which is the time from the beginning of a forced exhalation (the back-extrapolated “time zero”) maneuver to the end of expiration.

*FEV1* means forced expiratory volume in one second, which is the greatest volume of air that can be forcibly blown out within the first second, after full inspiration.

*FEV1/FVC* means the ratio between the largest acceptable FEV1 and the largest acceptable FVC following the forced vital capacity maneuver. It is usually reported as a percentage.

*FEV6* means forced expiratory volume in six seconds, which is the greatest volume of air that can forcibly be blown out in six seconds, after full inspiration.

*FVC* means forced vital capacity, which is the greatest volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration.

*PEF* means peak expiratory flow, which is the maximal airflow generated during a forced vital capacity maneuver.

*Spirometry test* means a pulmonary function test that measures expiratory volume and airflow rates and may determine the presence and severity of lung function impairments, if such are present.

[81 FR 73286, Oct. 24, 2016]