alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA Meeting with Airlines for America March 29 , 2012

**Attendees:** EPA OUST: Mark Barolo, Liz McDermott, Li nda Gerber , Paul Miller, Tim Smith, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan , Dave Hamnett

Airlines for America : Grant Smith, Burns and McDonnell Engineering Nancy Young , Airlines for America Tom Richichi, Beveridge and Diamond Bethan y French, Beveridge and Diamond Tim Pohle, Airlines for America

At this meeting EPA and the Airlines for America discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations . The discussion focused on the proposed changes to previously deferred airport hydrant sy stems and the universe of commercial airports that would fall under the proposed regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       38,796
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          843
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             12,460
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 121,845
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       97,863
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         98,207
<LOANS>                                     703,125
<ALLOWANCE>                                  11,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              994,840
<DEPOSITS>                                  850,182
<SHORT-TERM>                                  1,545
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           8,339
<LONG-TERM>                                  10,603
<COMMON>                                    123,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                     627
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              994,840
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              60,605
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            11,533
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                835
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             72,973
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           28,610
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           29,017
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        43,956
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   713
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              610
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              31,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              19,802
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   14,069
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 14,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.87
<LOANS-NON>                                   1,932
<LOANS-PAST>                                  2,697
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             11,057
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   853
<RECOVERIES>                                    335
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            11,668
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         11,668
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21726]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY


Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the 
Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue 
Service

    Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal 
Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the 
Treasury by General Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant to the 
Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the 
Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service 
Panel:
    1. Chairperson, Bernard J. Knight, Acting General Counsel 
(Department of Treasury).
    2. Paul D. DeNard, IRS, Deputy Commissioner (Operations) (Large and 
Mid Size Business).
    3. Faris R. Fink, IRS, Deputy Commissioner (Small Business/Self 
Employed).
    This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: August 8, 2009.
William J. Wilkins,
Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21726 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
§ 416.174 Payment for non-opioid pain management drugs and biologicals that function as supplies in surgical procedures. ( a ) *Eligibility for separate payment for non-opioid pain management drugs and biologicals.* Beginning on or after January 1, 2022, a non-opioid pain management drug or biological that functions as a surgical supply is eligible for separate payment for an applicable calendar year if CMS determines it meets the following requirements through that year's rulemaking: ( 1 ) The drug is approved under a new drug application under section 505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), under an abbreviated new drug application under section 505(j), or, in the case of a biological product, is licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act. The product has an FDA approved indication for pain management or analgesia.
( 2 ) The per-day cost of the drug or biological estimated by CMS for the year exceeds the OPPS drug packaging threshold set for such year through notice and comment rulemaking.
( 3 ) The drug or biological does not have transitional pass-through payment status under § 419.64 of this subchapter. In the case where a drug or biological otherwise meets the requirements under this section and has transitional pass-through payment status that expires during the calendar year, the drug or biological will qualify for separate payment as specified in this paragraph (a) during such calendar year on the first day of the next calendar year quarter following the expiration of its pass-through status.
( 4 ) The drug or biological is not already separately payable in the OPPS or ASC payment system under a policy other than the one specified in this section.
( b ) [Reserved]
[86 FR 63993, Nov. 16, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 72291, Nov. 23, 2022]
# C_2006143EN.01002802.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/28

---

Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-204/06)

(2006/C 143/53)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, (1) or in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, (1) or in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William V. LONIGAN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54769.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 10, 1974.

In re: William V. Lonigan applying for Remedial Writs.

Writ denied. Appeal in this same matter has been disposed of this date. See 54434, State v. Lonigan, La., 298 So.2d 739.
No. 99-8937.

#### Olds v. United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 

### Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:17 AM To: bhiggins@environcorp.com; Christina_Harris@kindermorga n.com Cc: klejeune@environcorp.com; Schaffner, Karen S. Subject: questions on December 6 2010 KM comments Attachments: pic18540.gif

Bliss,

Just a follow-up to our discussions last week and clarify my interests. In KM comment letter of December 6, 2010, there is mention of red uctions in benzene and butadiene emissions (below). I need to find out what was done for each of those projects and the before and after emissions. Can you provide?

Christina,

I tried you first and there was a problem with get ting to your voice mail and phone attendant. I also tried a co uple of people at the facility but did not get anywhere. Can you provide the above sometime soon. Our interest is to characterized the results of our new modeling of the 2005 data, with how the facility currently operates.

--------------------------------------------------- --------------------- From 12/6/10 KM comments on MTVLO

(Embedded image moved to file: pic18540.gif)

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

Stephen Shedd, Coatings and Chemicals Group, (E143- 01) Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27707 Voice: 919 541-5397 Fax: 919 685-3195
§ 424.55 Payment to the supplier. ( a ) Medicare pays the supplier for covered services if the beneficiary (or the person authorized to request payment on the beneficiary's behalf) assigns the claim to the supplier and the supplier accepts assignment.
( b ) In accepting assignment, the supplier agrees to the following: ( 1 ) To accept, as full charge for the service, the amount approved by the carrier as the basis for determining the Medicare Part B payment (the reasonable charge or the lesser of the fee schedule amount and the actual charge).
( 2 ) To limit charges to the beneficiary or any other source as follows: ( i ) To collect nothing for those services for which Medicare pays 100 percent of the Medicare approved amount.
( ii ) To collect only the difference between the Medicare approved amount and the Medicare Part B payment (for example, the amount of any reduction in incurred expenses under § 410.155(c), any applicable deductible amount, and any applicable coinsurance amount) for services for which Medicare pays less than 100 percent of the approved amount.
( 3 ) Not to charge the beneficiary when Medicare paid for services determined to be “not reasonable or necessary” if— ( i ) The beneficiary was without fault in the overpayment; and
( ii ) The determination that the payment was incorrect was made by the carrier after the third year following the year in which the carrier sent notice to the beneficiary that it approved the payment.
( c ) *Exception.* In situations when payment under the Act can only be made on an assignment-related basis or when payment is for services furnished by a participating physician or supplier, the beneficiary (or the person authorized to request payment on the beneficiary's behalf) is not required to assign the claim to the supplier in order for an assignment to be effective.
( d ) For purposes of claims for services submitted by an MDPP supplier (as defined at § 410.79(b) of this chapter), Medicare deems such claims to have been assigned by the beneficiary (or the person authorized to request payment on the beneficiary's behalf) and the assignment accepted by the MDPP supplier.
[53 FR 6634, Mar. 2, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 20130, Apr. 23, 1998; 69 FR 66426, Nov. 15, 2004; 82 FR 53364, Nov. 15, 2017]
No. 99-9951.

#### Alford v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- *919tiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT
32.1

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

# 18
U.S.C. §1350,

# AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

# SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gary L. Cook, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results  of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Gary L. Cook
Gary L. Cook
Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November
14, 2005

---
#### §§ 419.84-419.89 [Reserved]
#### Vaughn MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1979.

*684PER CURIAM.

Vaughn Monroe appeals the summary partial denial of his Rule 3.850 motion. We vacate the trial judge’s order disposing of the motion because the motion was not under oath.

Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 specifically provides that a motion for postconviction relief, submitted pursuant thereto, “shall be under oath.” We believe this requirement to be an absolute prerequisite to the trial court’s consideration of any such motion as it is the only effective way to prevent the use of false allegations in motions for postconviction relief.

Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to deny the motion without prejudice to appellant to file a sworn motion.

OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
§ 423.1094 Notice and effect of revised decision. ( a ) *Notice.* The notice mailed to the parties states the basis or reason for the revised decision and informs them of their right to Departmental Appeals Board review of an ALJ revised decision, or to judicial review of a Board reviewed decision.
( b ) *Effect* — ( 1 ) *ALJ revised decision.* An ALJ revised decision is binding unless it is reviewed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
( 2 ) *Departmental Appeals Board revised decision.* A Board revised decision is binding unless a party files a civil action in a district court of the United States within the time frames specified in 423.1088.
[72 FR 68726, Dec. 5, 2007, as amended at 85 FR 72909, Nov. 16, 2020]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Belarusian Democratic Leader Tsikhanouskaya

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Belarusian Democratic Leader Tsikhanouskaya							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

March 22, 2023

The following is attributable to Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with Belarusian Democratic Leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya today in Washington, D.C.  In advance of Belarus Freedom Day on March 25, the Deputy Secretary expressed the United States’ continuing commitment to supporting the Belarusian people’s pursuit of a democratic, sovereign, and stable future for Belarus.

Deputy Secretary Sherman also shared with Ms. Tsikhanouskaya the United States’ intent to launch a comprehensive Strategic Dialogue with the Belarusian democratic movement and civil society beginning in late 2023.  Deputy Secretary Sherman and Ms. Tsikhanouskaya shared their hope that the Strategic Dialogue will bring together relevant agencies of the U.S. government engaged on Belarus as well as a broad cross-section of Belarusian democratic actors, including political leaders, civil society representatives, independent journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, union leaders, academics, and ordinary Belarusians.

Tags

BelarusBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCivil SocietyDemocracyDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonStrategic Dialogue

Back to Top
# C_2006060EN.01001901.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 October 2005 in Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-445/05)

(2006/C 60/37)

Language of the case: Germany

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 20 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Werner Haderer and Finanzamt Wilmersdorf on the following question:

Is tuition for school or university given by a private teacher to be exempt from tax under Article 13A(1)(j) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) only where the private teacher provides his tuition services directly to the pupils/students as recipients of those services — and therefore is paid by them — or is it sufficient for the private teacher to provide his tuition services to a school or university as recipient of those services?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
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 Quarterly Report of Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gifford A.
Dieterle, Chief Executive 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:





(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/ Gifford A. DieterleGifford
      A. DieterleChief
      Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and Treasuer(Principal
      Executive Officer)March
      12, 2010
#### SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY, INC. v. STATE of Alabama.

77-678.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 16, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1979.

W. Gerald Stone and James B. Kierce, Jr. of Stone, Patton & Kierce, Bessemer, for appellant.

Thomas Coleman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Birmingham, for the State of Alabama, ap-pellee.

*543PER CURIAM.

This case is affirmed on the authority of *Thornton v. City of Birmingham,*250 Ala. 651, 35 So.2d 545, 7 A.L.R.2d 773 (1948).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
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 RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, J.J. Finkelstein, President 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|               |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ J.J. Finkelstein                 
|               |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|               |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
130 STAT. 428 PUBLIC LAW 114–174—JUNE 13, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3735: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Mar. 1, considered and passed House. 

May 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–174 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Town 

Run Lane in Winston Salem, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Maya Angelou Memorial 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MAYA ANGELOU MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 200 Town Run Lane in Winston Salem, North 

Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Maya Angelou 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Maya Angelou Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved June 13, 2016. 

June 13, 2016 

[H.R. 3735] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
§ 3.546 ALJ's decision. ( a ) The ALJ must issue a decision, based only on the record, which must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) The ALJ may affirm, increase, or reduce the penalties imposed by the Secretary.
( c ) The ALJ must issue the decision to both parties within 60 days after the time for submission of post-hearing briefs and reply briefs, if permitted, has expired. If the ALJ fails to meet the deadline contained in this paragraph, he or she must notify the parties of the reason for the delay and set a new deadline.
( d ) Unless the decision of the ALJ is timely appealed as provided for in § 3.548, the decision of the ALJ will be final and binding on the parties 60 days from the date of service of the ALJ's decision.