alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| */s/              Eric Yu*Name:    Eric              Yu                                                                                                                                                                     |   |   |   |
| Title:                     Chief Financial Officer       Chief                  Accounting OfficerDate:                       May                  4, 2007 |   |   |   |

----
§ 417.600 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* ( 1 ) Section 1869 of the Act provides the right to a redetermination, reconsideration, hearing, and judicial review for individuals dissatisfied with a determination regarding their Medicare benefits.
( 2 ) Section 1876 of the Act provides for Medicare payments to HMOs and CMPs that contract with CMS to enroll Medicare beneficiaries and furnish Medicare-covered health care services to them.
( 3 ) Section 234 of the MMA requires section 1876 contractors to operate under the same provisions as MA plans where two plans of the same type enter the cost plan contract's service area.
( b ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) The rights, procedures, and requirements relating to beneficiary appeals and grievances set forth in subpart M of part 422 of this chapter also apply to Medicare contracts with HMOs and CMPs under section 1876 of the Act.
( 2 ) In applying those provisions, references to section 1852 of the Act must be read as references to section 1876 of the Act, and references to MA organizations as references to HMOs and CMPs.
[60 FR 46233, Sept. 6, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 23374, Apr. 30, 1997; 70 FR 4713, Jan. 28, 2005]
HomeEgypt

# Egypt

277 items

        -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry’s Visit to the United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Arab Republic of Egypt	  June 16, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 15, 2021	  Jalina PorterJune 15, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 3, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Egyptian President Al Sisi 	  May 26, 2021 
        -    Remarks to the Press  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 26, 2021St. Regis HotelAmman, Jordan 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Israeli Alternate Prime Minister Gantz	  May 25, 2021 
        -    		Travel to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Cairo, and Amman May 24-27, 2021	   
        -    Special Briefing  		Briefing with Senior State Department Official on the Secretary’s Upcoming Travel to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Cairo, and Amman	  May 24, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Cairo, and Amman	  Ned PriceMay 24, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry	  May 16, 2021 

previous page1…2122232425…28next page

Back to Top
MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960

November 7, 2014

SUBJECT: MOVES Modeling Files for Federal Register Document EPA-R04-0AR-2014- 0674; Approval ofImplementation Plans and Designation ofAreas; Alabama; Redesignation ofthe Alabama Portion ofthe Chattanooga, 1997 PM2
.s Nonattainment Area to Attainment FROM: Joydeb Majumder

# :J l'A Regulatory Development Section TO: File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2014-0674
Due to the MOVES modeling file type, theRegion was unable to upload the MOVES files from Alabama's submittal to the Federal Docket Management System. An electronic copycan be viewed at the Regulatory Development Section, AirPlanning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, ifat all possible, you schedule your inspection. Please contact Joydeb Majumder, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section ofthe Federal Registernotice for an appointment. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

Internet Address (UAL) • http://wwwepa

_ gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks onRecycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SAMUEL BRUNT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3832 ) DAWN BRUNT, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 17, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley D. Tibbals, Judge. Michael J. Rozum of Michael J. Rozum, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant. Jean M. Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for Appellee.

ATKINSON, Judge.

We affirm the single order entered by the trial court titled "final judgment denying former husband's supplemental petition for modification of final judgment of dissolution of marriage; final judgment on former husband's supplemental petition as to modification of child support only; and final orders on former wife's multiple motions for- 2 -

contempt/enforcement." See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). However, we grant the appellee's motion to dismiss and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal challenging the trial court's finding as to the wife's entitlement to attorney's fees. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

SILBERMAN and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThermal Control Subsystem Design for the Avionics of a Space Station PayloadA case study of the thermal control subsystem development for a space based payload is presented from the concept stage through preliminary design. This payload, the Space Acceleration Measurement System 2 (SAMS-2), will measure the acceleration environment at select locations within the International Space Station. Its thermal control subsystem must maintain component temperatures within an acceptable range over a 10 year life span, while restricting accessible surfaces to touch temperature limits and insuring fail safe conditions in the event of loss of cooling. In addition to these primary design objectives, system level requirements and constraints are imposed on the payload, many of which are driven by multidisciplinary issues. Blending these issues into the overall system design required concurrent design sessions with the project team, iterative conceptual design layouts, thermal analysis and modeling, and hardware testing. Multiple tradeoff studies were also performed to investigate the many options which surfaced during the development cycle.Document ID19970001432Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsMoran, Matthew E.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107334E-10463NASA-TM-107334Meeting InformationMeeting: International Mechanical Engineering Congress and ExpositionLocation: Atlanta, GACountry: United StatesStart Date: November 17, 1996End Date: November 22, 1996Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N11247Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 963-60-0BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001432.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 592.201 Prohibited importation and exportation of any rough diamond; permitted importation or exportation of any rough diamond. ( a ) Except to the extent provided in paragraph (b) of this section, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, the importation into, or exportation from, the United States on or after July 30, 2003, of any rough diamond, from whatever source, is prohibited, unless the rough diamond has been controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.
( b ) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section regarding the importation into, or exportation from, the United States of any rough diamond not controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme do not apply to an importation from, or exportation to, any country with respect to which the Secretary of State has granted a waiver pursuant to section 4(b) of the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19) and section 2(a)(i) of Executive Order 13312.
Note to § 592.201 .
An importation of any rough diamond from, or an exportation of any rough diamond to, a non-Participant is not controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme and thus is not permitted, except in the following circumstance. The Secretary of State may, pursuant to section 4(b) of the Clean Diamond Trade Act, waive the prohibitions contained in section 4(a) of that Act with respect to a particular country for periods of not more than one year each. The Secretary of State will publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying any country with respect to which a waiver applies and specifying the relevant time period during which the waiver will apply.
# C_2005171EN.01002201.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/22

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 April 2005

in Case T-34/05 R Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Interlocutory proceedings - Interim measures - Action for failure to act - Admissibility - Directive 91/414/EEC)

(2005/C 171/37)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-34/05 R: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV and Others, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegen, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Doherty, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for an order for interim measures concerning the evaluation of Endosulfan with a view to its possible inclusion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 27 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2710

To provide for the conveyance of certain land in the State of California

to the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 5, 1995

Mr. RIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To provide for the conveyance of certain land in the State

of California to the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hoopa Valley Reserva5 tion South Boundary Correction Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. LAND TRANSFER TO RESERVATION.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—All right, title, and interest of the

8 United States in and to the lands described in subsection

9 (b) shall hereafter be held in trust by the United States
2

•HR 2710 IH

1 for the benefit of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and shall be part

2 of the Hoopa Valley Reservation.

3 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.—The lands referred to in

4 subsection (a) are those portions of Townships 7 North

5 and 8 North, Ranges 5 East and 6 East, Humboldt Merid6 ian, California, within a boundary beginning at a point

7 on the current south boundary of the Hoopa Valley Indian

8 Reservation, marked and identified as ‘‘Post H.V.R. No.

9 8’’ on the Plat of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

10 prepared from a field survey conducted by C.T. Bissel, Au11 gustus T. Smith and C.A. Robinson, Deputy Surveyors,

12 approved by the Surveyor General, H. Pratt, March 18,

13 1892, and extending from said point on a bearing of north

14 72 degrees 30 minutes east, until intersecting with a line

15 beginning at a point marked as ‘‘Post H.V.R. No. 3’’ on

16 said survey and extending on a bearing of south 15 de17 grees 59 minutes east, comprising 2,641 acres more or

18 less.

19 SEC. 3. SURVEY.

20 The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bu21 reau of Land Management, shall survey and monument

22 that portion of the boundary of the Hoopa Valley Reserva23 tion established by the addition of lands made by section

24 2.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Wilfred J. Corrigan, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of LSI
Logic Corporation on Form 10-K/A
for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of LSI Logic Corporation. By: /s/ WILFRED J. CORRIGANName: Wilfred J. CorriganTitle: Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 21.1
Subsidiaries of Omega Financial Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                               State or Jurisdiction          Trade Name
                                                 of Incorporation              (if any)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>
Omega Bank, N.A.                                    United States               Omega Bank
P.O. Box 298                                                            Hollidaysburg Trust Company
State College, PA    16804                                              Penn Central National Bank
                                                                                  SunBank
                                                                               Guaranty Bank

Omega Financial Company, LLC                        Delaware
1105 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899

Central Pennsylvania Investment Company             Delaware
1105 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899

Omega Insurance Agency, Inc.                        Pennsylvania         Omega Investment Services
366 Walker Drive
State College, PA 16801

Central Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company         Arizona
1421 E. Thomas Road
Phoenix, AZ 85014

Central Pennsylvania Leasing, Inc.                  Pennsylvania
366 Walker Drive
State College, PA 16801

Central Pennsylvania Real Estate, Inc.              Pennsylvania
366 Walker Drive
State College, PA 16801

Bank Capital Services Corporation                   Pennsylvania
34 Route 315
Pittston, PA 18640

Sentry Trust Company                                Pennsylvania
785 Fifth Avenue
Chambersburg PA 17201

Sun Investment Services, Inc.                       Pennsylvania
Lewisburg, PA

Beacon Life Insurance Company                       Arizona
101 N. First Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Mid-Penn Insurance Associates                       Pennsylvania
51 South Fourth Street
Sunbury, PA 17801

Sun Bancorp Statutory Trust I                       Connecticut
c/o US Bank
One Federal Street, Third Floor
Boston MA 02110
</TABLE>


                                       47
<PAGE>

Omega Financial Capital Trust I                     Delaware
366 Walker Drive
State College, PA 16801

SUBI Services Inc.                                  Pennsylvania
Lewisburg, PA


                                       48
41005.

#### DIXIE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. THOMPSON.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Where an employee works for two employers, for convenience designated as “A” and “B” (receiving $35 per week from “A”, and $54 per week from “B”), and is injured while in the employment of “A”, and signs a set*735tlement agreement with employer *“A”,*which was approved by the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, providing for the payment of $21 per week based on an average weekly wage of $35 per week earned from employer “A” only, presumably for the reason that the employment for the two employers was dissimilar, *St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Idov,*88 Ga. App. 697, 700-701 (77 SE2d 327), his return to work for employer “B” at a wage in excess of $35 per week, where the evidence demands a finding that the employee’s physical condition had not improved to the extent of (1) his ability to earn as much in the employment of employer “A”, or another employer on the same or a similar job as he did from “A” before his injury, or (2) that his condition had improved to the extent that he could earn a portion of the $35 at some work, does not authorize the Workmen’s Compensation Board to order discontinued the weekly payment under the approved agreement with employer “A”. This is true because the settlement agreement with employer “A” did not reflect the employee’s economic loss except as to his loss of wages from “A”, and employer *“A”*cannot benefit from the employee’s earnings from employer “B”, not because “B” is a different employer, *Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*219 Ga. 581 (134 SE2d 783), but because the employee’s settlement agreement was not based in any way on the earnings of the employee from employer “B” and did not compensate him on the basis of his total earnings and economic loss. The agreement is res adjudicata as to the amount of compensation due from employer “A” until a change in the employee’s physical condition is adjudicated to show that the employee’s condition has improved to the extent that he can perform some duties and earn all or part of the remuneration he was paid by employer *“A”*before his injury. The burden of showing such improvement is on the employer “A” where it discontinues payments without authority. The question as to what duties he can now perform with employer “B” is irrelevant except as his ability to perform them illustrates his improvement to the extent that he can now perform additional duties to earn all or part of the $35 formerly paid by employer “A”. There was no competent evidence to show that the employee’s physical condition had improved so as to enable him to perform his former duties with employer “A”, or any other comparable employment, or a substantial part thereof and the superior *736court did not err in reversing the award of the full board which stopped payments of compensation from the date of the applications for a hearing on change in condition.

Decided November 30, 1964.

*Perry, Walters & Langstaff, S. B. Dippitt, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*McDonald & Mills, Ben B. Mills, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Parnell, JJ., concur.*
§ 417.407 Requirements for a Competitive Medical Plan (CMP). ( a ) *General rule.* To qualify as a CMP, an entity must be organized under the laws of a State and must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
( b ) *Required services* — ( 1 ) *Basic rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the entity furnishes to its enrollees at least the following services: ( i ) Physicians' services performed by physicians.
( ii ) Laboratory, x-ray, emergency, and preventive services.
( iii ) Out-of-area coverage.
( iv ) Inpatient hospital services.
( 2 ) Exception for Medicaid prepayment risk contracts. An entity that had, before 1970, a Medicaid prepayment risk contract that did not include provision of inpatient hospital services is not required to provide those services.
( c ) *Compensation for services.* The entity receives compensation (except for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) for the health care services it provides to enrollees on a periodic, prepaid capitation basis regardless of the frequency, extent, or kind of services provided to any enrollee.
( d ) *Source of physicians' services.* The entity provides physicians' services primarily through— ( 1 ) Physicians who are employees or partners of the entity; or
( 2 ) Physicians or groups of physicians (organized on a group or individual practice basis) under contract with the entity to provide physicians' services.
( e ) *Assumption of financial risk.* The rules set forth in § 417.120(b) for HMOs apply also to CMPs except that reference to “basic services” must be read as reference to the required services listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( f ) *Protection of enrollees.* The entity provides adequately against the risk of insolvency by meeting the requirements of §§ 417.120(a) and 417.122 for protection of enrollees against loss of benefits and liability for payment of any fees that are the legal responsibility of the entity.
[60 FR 45675, Sept. 1, 1995]