alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 425.206 Evaluation procedures for applications. ( a ) *Basis for evaluation and determination.* ( 1 ) CMS evaluates an ACO's application to determine whether an applicant satisfies the requirements of this part and is qualified to participate in the Shared Savings Program, and approves or denies applications accordingly. Applications are approved or denied on the basis of the following: ( i ) Information contained in and submitted with the application by an application deadline specified by CMS.
( ii ) Supplemental information that was submitted in response to a CMS request and by a deadline specified by CMS.
( iii ) Other information available to CMS.
( 2 ) CMS notifies an ACO applicant when supplemental information is required for CMS to make a determination on the ACO's application and provides an opportunity for the ACO to submit the information.
( 3 ) CMS may deny an application if an ACO applicant fails to submit requested information by the deadlines established by CMS.
( b ) *Notice of determination.* ( 1 ) CMS notifies in writing each applicant ACO of its determination to approve or deny the ACO's application to participate in the Shared Savings Program.
( 2 ) If CMS denies the application, the notice will indicate that the ACO is not qualified to participate in the Shared Savings Program, specify the reasons why the ACO is not so qualified, and inform the ACO of its right to request reconsideration review in accordance with the procedures specified in subpart I of this part.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32838, June 9, 2015]
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certifications**I, Mitchell D. Staples, principal financial officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 4, 2005         /s/ Mitchell D. Staples   Mitchell D. Staples   Principal financial officer
#### PARISH OF JEFFERSON v. Phyllis DITTA, wife of/and Richard John ANDREWS.

No. 6450.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1974.

Alvin Rudy Eason, Parish Atty., James S. Arceneaux, Asst. Parish Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.

Knight, D’Angelo & Knight, Harry C. Stumpf, Gretna, for defendants-appellees.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

Plaintiff, the Parish of Jefferson, filed suit to recover an alleged rental overpayment to defendants, Phyllis Ditta, wife of/and Richard J. Andrews’. Personal service of the petition and citation was effected on Mrs. Andrews and through her, domiciliary service was obtained on Mr. Andrews.

More than one year after citation, Mrs. Andrews filed an answer and alleged, inter alia, she and her co-defendant were divorced. No answer was filed on- Mr. Andrews’ behalf, thus, as to him, issue was never joined. A preliminary default was entered against him, but it was never confirmed.

The case was fixed for trial on the merits three times, twice continued, and on the third setting, September 22, 1971, counsel for plaintiff and Mrs. Andrews appeared and agreed to submit the matter on a written stipulation of facts.1 Although the *372stipulation was never submitted, judgment on the merits was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s suit against both defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.

We therefore find it necessary to remand this matter in order to afford the litigants an opportunity to clarify the status of the defendant Richard J. Andrews; to file additional pleadings; and to adduce evidence upon which a judgment may be predicated.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and it is ordered this case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. Assessment of costs of this appeal is to await the final disposition of this case.

Annulled and remanded.

1

. The court’s minute entry for that date merely recites, “Each attorney will submit a memorandum.”

The transcript of the proceedings on the same date contains no testimony but only the following colloquy between the attorney and the court:

> “BY MR. EASON:

> May it please the Court, counsel has agreed to submit a written stipulation to the Court and thereafter at the pleasure of the Court submit written memorandums on the case. This is a factual issue. The Parish contends they over-paid certain rentals and the defendant contends if we over-paid, it is our fault and we lose the money.

> What we will do is prepare, with the Court’s permission, a written stipulation as to those facts and say fifteen days after the entering of the stipulation, I will come back with a written memorandum and fifteen days later Mr. Stumpf will come back.

> BY THE COURT:

> Thank you Mr. Eason.”
# C_2005318EN.01000502.xml

| 14.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4016 — Macquarie Airports Copenhagen/Copenhagen Airports)

(2005/C 318/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 5 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in 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 32005M4016. 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 32005M4016. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2006112EN.01001301.xml

| 12.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

---

Corrigendum to the call for proposals in the field of environmental protection

(Official Journal of the European Union C 80 of 4 April 2006)

(Official Journal of the European Union C 80 of 4 April 2006)

(2006/C 112/10)

The deadline for replying, provided for in point II, is extended until 30 June 2006 exclusively for Theme 7
  (Scheme to support peer review of national sustainable development strategies) in Annex A.

extended until 30 June 2006

Theme 7

(Scheme to support peer review of national sustainable development strategies)

Annex A to the call for proposals in the field of environmental protection is published on the Internet at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment /funding/general/index_en.htm

---
§ 423.2112 Content of request for review. ( a ) ( 1 ) The request for Council review must be filed with the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action.
( 2 ) The request for review must be in writing and may be made on a standard form, except for requests for expedited reviews which may be made orally.
( 3 ) The Council must document all oral requests in writing and maintain the documentation in the case file.
( 4 ) A written request that is not made on a standard form or, for expedited requests, an oral request, is accepted if it includes the enrollee's name and telephone number, the plan name; Medicare number; the ALJ appeal number; the specific Part D drug(s) for which the review is requested; a statement that the enrollee is requesting an expedited review, if applicable; and the name of the enrollee or the representative of the enrollee.
( b ) The request for review must identify the parts of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator action with which the enrollee requesting review disagrees and explain why he or she disagrees with the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision, dismissal, or other determination being appealed.
( c ) The Council will limit its review of an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's actions to those exceptions raised by the enrollee in the request for review, unless the enrollee is unrepresented. For purposes of this section only, a representative is either anyone with a valid appointment as the enrollee's representative or is a member of the enrollee's family, a legal guardian or an individual who routinely acts on behalf of the enrollee, such as a family member or friend who has a power of attorney.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017; 84 FR 19874, May 7, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

****

**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 Advanced Cellular Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report), Dean Antonis, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Dean Antonis                       Dean AntonisTreasurer and Principal Accounting OfficerDate:  January 28, 2004This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Thomas V. Geimer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Accelr8 Technology Corporation (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Accelr8 Technology
Corporation;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date: December 15, 2008


/s/ Thomas V. Geimer
-------------------------------
Thomas V. Geimer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex parte Mattie Mae MACON. (Re: Mattie Mae MACON, widow of Miles Macon, a/k/a Miles Macon, Jr., Deceased v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ASHFORD, a National Banking Association and Alveta Hawk, doing business as Hawk & Son Funeral Home).

79-249.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 11, 1980.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.270 Incorrect collections of premiums and cost-sharing. ( a ) *Definitions.* As used in this section- ( 1 ) Amounts incorrectly collected- ( i ) Means amounts that- ( A ) Exceed the limits approved under § 422.262;
( B ) In the case of an MA private fee-for-service plan, exceed the MA monthly basic beneficiary premium or the MA monthly supplemental premium submitted under § 422.262; and
( C ) In the case of an MA MSA plan, exceed the MA monthly beneficiary supplemental premium submitted under § 422.262, or exceed permissible cost sharing amounts after the deductible has been met per § 422.103; and
( ii ) Includes amounts collected from an enrollee who was believed to be entitled to Medicare benefits but was later found not to be entitled.
( 2 ) *Other amounts due* are amounts due for services that were— ( i ) Emergency, urgently needed services, or other services obtained outside the MA plan; or
( ii ) Initially denied but, upon appeal, found to be services the enrollee was entitled to have furnished by the MA organization.
( b ) *Basic commitments.* An MA organization must agree to refund all amounts incorrectly collected from its Medicare enrollees, or from others on behalf of the enrollees, and to pay any other amounts due the enrollees or others on their behalf.
( c ) *Refund methods* — ( 1 ) *Lump-sum payment.* The MA organization must use lump-sum payments for the following: ( i ) Amounts incorrectly collected that were not collected as premiums.
( ii ) Other amounts due.
( iii ) All amounts due if the MA organization is going out of business or terminating its MA contract for an MA plan(s).
( 2 ) *Premium adjustment or lump-sum payment, or both.* If the amounts incorrectly collected were in the form of premiums, or included premiums as well as other charges, the MA organization may refund by adjustment of future premiums or by a combination of premium adjustment and lump-sum payments.
( 3 ) *Refund when enrollee has died or cannot be located.* If an enrollee has died or cannot be located after reasonable effort, the MA organization must make the refund in accordance with State law.
( d ) *Reduction by CMS.* If the MA organization does not make the refund required under this section by the end of the contract period following the contract period during which an amount was determined to be due to an enrollee, CMS will reduce the premium the MA organization is allowed to charge an MA plan enrollee by the amounts incorrectly collected or otherwise due. In addition, the MA organization would be subject to sanction under subpart O of this part for failure to refund amounts incorrectly collected from MA plan enrollees.
Exhibit 99

                              [Letterhead of KPMG]

                          Independent Auditors' Report

Board of Directors and Shareholders
Tappan Zee Financial, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Tappan Zee
Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 1998. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tappan Zee
Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
ended March 31, 1998, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

                                    KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
April 28, 1998
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joan D. Montgomery, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Accelr8 Technology
     Corporation.

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; and

     c)   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 that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   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 registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     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; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls over financial report.

Dated: June 14, 2005


/s/ Joan D. Montgomery
----------------------
Joan D. Montgomery, Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2006126EN.01000802.xml

| 30.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3877 — Costa Crociere/Royal Caribbean/Marinvest/RCT JV)

(2006/C 126/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 May 2006, 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 website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M3877. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3877. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0001803

30-JAN-2018

08:23 AM