alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1465 Physician-focused payment models. ( a ) *Definition.* A physician-focused payment model (PFPM) is an Alternative Payment Model: ( 1 ) In which Medicare is a payer;
( 2 ) In which eligible clinicians that are eligible professionals as defined in section 1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act are participants and play a core role in implementing the APM's payment methodology; and
( 3 ) Which targets the quality and costs of services that eligible professionals participating in the Alternative Payment Model provide, order, or can significantly influence.
( b ) *Criteria.* In carrying out its review of physician-focused payment model proposals, the PTAC must assess whether the physician-focused payment model meets the following criteria for PFPMs sought by the Secretary. The Secretary seeks PFPMs that: ( 1 ) *Incentives: Pay for higher-value care.* ( i ) Value over volume: provide incentives to practitioners to deliver high-quality health care.
( ii ) Flexibility: provide the flexibility needed for practitioners to deliver high-quality health care.
( iii ) Quality and Cost: are anticipated to improve health care quality at no additional cost, maintain health care quality while decreasing cost, or both improve health care quality and decrease cost.
( iv ) Payment methodology: pay APM Entities with a payment methodology designed to achieve the goals of the PFPM Criteria. Addresses in detail through this methodology how Medicare, and other payers if applicable, pay APM Entities, how the payment methodology differs from current payment methodologies, and why the PFPM cannot be tested under current payment methodologies.
( v ) Scope: aim to broaden or expand the CMS APM portfolio by addressing an issue in payment policy in a new way or including APM Entities whose opportunities to participate in APMs have been limited.
( vi ) Ability to be evaluated: have evaluable goals for quality of care, cost, and any other goals of the PFPM.
( 2 ) *Care delivery improvements: Promote better care coordination, protect patient safety, and encourage patient engagement.* ( i ) Integration and Care Coordination: encourage greater integration and care coordination among practitioners and across settings where multiple practitioners or settings are relevant to delivering care to the population treated under the PFPM.
( ii ) Patient Choice: encourage greater attention to the health of the population served while also supporting the unique needs and preferences of individual patients.
( iii ) Patient Safety: aim to maintain or improve standards of patient safety.
( 3 ) *Information Enhancements: Improving the availability of information to guide decision-making.* ( i ) Health Information Technology: encourage use of health information technology to inform care.
( ii ) [Reserved]
# C_2005320EN.01001701.xml

| 15.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/17

---

THE DAPHNE II PROGRAMME (2004-2008)

THE DAPHNE II PROGRAMME

to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women, and to protect victims and groups at risk

Call for proposals for specific co-funded projects 2006

(2005/C 320/09)

A call for proposals concerning the Daphne II programme is currently launched. The priorities, the full text of the call, the application forms and the guidelines can be found on the Daphne website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/daphne/funding_daphne_en.htm

To assist applicants in the preparation of their proposals, a helpdesk has been set up. It can be accessed by e-mail: daphne-helpdesk@transtec.be

helpdesk

You must return the completed application form and all its annexes (in 4 paper copies + one electronic copy on a diskette or CD-ROM) to the Commission by 10 February 2005, at the following address:

by 10 February 2005

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security (Unit C.4) |
| Office LX 46 02/155 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles |

European Commission

Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security (Unit C.4)

Office LX 46 02/155

B-1049 Bruxelles

Your envelope must be marked ‘APPLICATION UNDER THE DAPHNE II PROGRAMME’.

---
Home2023 Treaties and Agreements...Greece (23-927) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Radiation and Safety Matters

# 									Greece (23-927) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Radiation and Safety Matters							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 27, 2023

Nuclear Energy

Signed at Vienna September 27, 2023; entered into force September 27, 2023.
Download Agreement						 [588 KB]

Tags

GreeceNuclear EnergyTreaties

Back to Top
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

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

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

Central Pennsylvania Leasing, Inc.                 Pennsylvania                    --

Central Pennsylvania Real Estate, Inc.             Pennsylvania                    --
</TABLE>


                                       24
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

d0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142806-7

LOFTS ON THE NINE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142806 COA: 294825 Oakland CC: 2009-102996-CK KEVIN AKEY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

LOFTS ON THE NINE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142807 COA: 295977 Oakland CC: 2009-101063-CK JAMES FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 10, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2006074EN.01001902.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/19

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2006 — Finland v Commission

(Case T-177/05) (1)

1

(Procedural issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Acts not producing binding legal effects - European Communities' own resources - Infringement proceedings - Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment)

(2006/C 74/39)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties:

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

Defendant:

Application for

Annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005 whereby the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153 of 25.6.2005.

1

---
#### Isaiah KING and Ralph King, Appellants, v. FLORIDA CITY, Florida, a Municipal Corporation of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

Turner, Hodson & Watkins and John M. Lynn, Homestead, for appellant.

William A. Ingraham, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to the City of Florida City, Florida, commanding the City to grant its approval in all respects to petitioners’ application to the State Beverage Department for' liquor license and to grant the occupational licenses and other necessary permits of any kind whatsoever required to operate a “restaurant and nightclub” in Florida City. The trial judge set forth his findings from the evidence as follows :

> . the Court . . . finds that the use of said premises as a restaurant-lounge is a nuisance within the meaning of Section 11, Master Zoning Code of the City of Florida City, Florida and a menace to the life and property of the citizens of Florida City, Florida, law enforcement agencies, and the patrons of said, establishment.

> “The Court further finds that Petitioner, Ralph King, was previously licensed to operate said cafe prior to it being closed by the State Beverage Department; and that, Isaiah King, Ralph King, and Adolph King, a former operator, are brothers.”

On this appeal, the petitioners have failed to show that they were, under the facts found, entitled to the writ. See Myers v. State ex rel. Thompson, 81 Fla. 32, 87 So. 80 (1921) and De Groot v. Sheffield, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 912.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.912 Conflicts of interest ( a ) Approved CAP vendors and applicants that bid to participate in the CAP are subject to the following: ( 1 ) The conflict of interest standards and requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) organizational conflict of interest guidance, found under FAR subpart 9.5.
( 2 ) Those requirements and standards contained in each individual contract awarded to perform functions under section 1847B of the Act.
( b ) *Post-award conflicts of interest.* Approved CAP vendors must have a code of conduct that establishes policies and procedures for recognizing and resolving conflicts of interest between the approved CAP vendor and any entity, including the Federal Government, with whom it does business. The code of conduct which is submitted as part of the application must— ( 1 ) State the need for management, employees, contractors, and agents to comply with the approved CAP vendor's code of conduct, and policies and procedures for conflicts of interest; and
( 2 ) State the approved CAP vendor's expectations for management, employees, contractors, and agents to comply with the approved CAP vendor's code of conduct, and policies and procedures for detecting, preventing, and resolving conflicts of interest.
[70 FR 39094, July 6, 2005]
#### SOL KANTOR, PROSECUTOR, v. THE CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE PERTH AMBOY HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted October 13, 1939

Decided November 22, 1939.

*505Before Justices Parker, Bodine and Perskie.

*Sol*Kantor, *pro se.*

For the city of Perth Amboy, *Francis M. Seaman.*

For the Perth Amboy Housing Authority, *Alfred D. Antonio.*

Bodine, J.

The prosecutor seeks a writ of *certiorari*to review the ordinance of the city of Perth Amboy and the statutes of this state under which the Perth Amboy Housing Authority exists. He procured a rule to show cause which was dismissed for failure to properly prosecute the same. He now seeks a writ and presents no reasons for the issuance thereof, as provided by section 5 of the *Certiorari*act. Examining prosecutor’s brief, we have assumed that the reasons there stated would be his reasons for reversal. It might be pointed out that the brief offends rule 156 of this court.

The reasons assigned are, in short, that the New Jersey Housing acts — chapter 19 of the laws of 1938, *B. S.*title 55, chapter 14a and chapter 20 of the laws of 1938, *B. S.*title 55, chapter 14b, are unconstitutional because offending constitutional requirements with respect to the enactment of laws. The same reasons were presented in the case of *Romano*v. *Housing Authority of*Newark, 123 *N. J. L.*428, and were argued at length. We there determined that the points with respect to the unconstitutionality of the acts in question were without merit and warranted no lengthy discussions.

The application for the writ will be denied, with costs to the respondent.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ▲ ★

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

■ ★

■ ■

■

★ ■

■ ■

■

● ★

●

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTests of the Performance of Coatings for Low Ice AdhesionThis paper reports studies of the performance of low-ice-adhesion coatings by NASA Lewis and BFGoodrich. Studies used impact ice accreted both in the NASA Lewis Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) and in the BFGoodrich Icing Wind Tunnel (IWT) and static ice in a BFGoodrich bench-top parallel-plate shear rig. Early tests at NASA Lewis involved simple qualitative evaluations of the ease of removing impact ice from a surface. Coated surfaces were compared with uncoated ones. Some of the coatings were tested again with static ice at BFGoodrich to obtain quantitative measurements. Later, methods to establish the adhesion force on surfaces subjected to impact ice were explored at Lewis. This paper describes the various test programs and the results of testing some of the coatings looked at over the past 5 years. None of the coatings were found to be truly ice-phobic; however, the most effective coatings were found to reduce the adhesion of ice to about 1/2 that of an uncoated aluminum sample.Document ID19970009491Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsAnderson, David N.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Reich, Allen D.*(Goodrich (B. F.) Co. Brecksville, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Publication InformationPublisher: The American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsSubject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberE-10604NAS 1.15:107399NASA-TM-107399AIAA Paper 97-0303Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 6, 1997End Date: January 10, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N14977Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 548-20-23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970009491.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
H. R. 325

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the reduction

of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas

designated as severe, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended to read

as follows:

‘‘(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a revision

at any time requiring employers in such area to implement

programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees. Such revision shall be developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator pursuant to

section 108(f) and may require that employers in such area

increase average passenger occupancy per vehicle in commuting

trips between home and the workplace during peak travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator may specify average

vehicle occupancy rates which vary for locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, business district) or

among nonattainment areas reflecting existing occupancy rates

and the availability of high occupancy modes. Any State

required to submit a revision under this subparagraph (as

in effect before the date of enactment of this sentence) containing provisions requiring employers to reduce work-related

vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees may, in accordance with State law, remove such provisions from the

implementation plan, or withdraw its submission, if the State

notifies the Administrator, in writing, that the State has undertaken, or will undertake, one or more alternative methods
H. R. 325—2

that will achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to

be achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 Annual Report of AmeriServ Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey A. Stopko, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Jeffrey A. Stopko                                
|Jeffrey A. Stopko                                   
|Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|March 7, 2011
# C_2006060EN.01002801.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/28

---

Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Rafael De Bustamante Tello against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-368/03 Rafael De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/06 P)

(2006/C 60/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-368/03 Rafael De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Rafael De Bustamante Tello, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.

Rafael De Bustamante Tello

Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| (1) | Declare this appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Declare this appeal admissible;

| (2) | Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005;

| (3) | Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 24 to 45 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

---