alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3.212 Nonidentification of patient safety work product. ( a ) Patient safety work product is nonidentifiable with respect to a particular identified provider or a particular identified reporter if: ( 1 ) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable: ( i ) Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an identified provider or reporter; and
( ii ) Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify such determination; or
( 2 ) ( i ) The following identifiers of such provider or reporter and of affiliated organizations, corporate parents, subsidiaries, practice partners, employers, members of the workforce, or household members of such providers or reporters are removed: ( A ) The direct identifiers listed at § 3.206(b)(4)(iv)(A)( 1 ) through ( 13 ) of this subpart;
( B ) Geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code and equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census, the geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people;
( C ) All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to a patient safety incident or event; and
( D ) Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code except as permitted for re-identification; and
( ii ) The provider, PSO or responsible person making the disclosure does not have actual knowledge that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other information that is reasonably available to the intended recipient, to identify the particular provider or reporter.
( 3 ) *Re-identification.* A provider, PSO, or responsible person may assign a code or other means of record identification to allow information made nonidentifiable under this section to be re-identified by such provider, PSO, or responsible person, provided that: ( i ) The code or other means of record identification is not derived from or related to information about the provider or reporter and is not otherwise capable of being translated so as to identify the provider or reporter; and
( ii ) The provider, PSO, or responsible person does not use or disclose the code or other means of record identification for any other purpose, and does not disclose the mechanism for re-identification.
( b ) Patient safety work product is non-identifiable with respect to a particular patient only if the individually identifiable health information regarding that patient is de-identified in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule standard and implementation specifications for the de-identification at 45 CFR 164.514(a) through (c).
, , [4910-13-P[

~ 

# 1- - l) lJTING SY"MIlOL 

# A"A- \0\ 

# l

* 

## * * 

## * * * 

## * Ithas been found occurrences ofmain landing gear (MLG) trailing arm pins broken due to afatigue mechanism induced by an excessive torque applied during the assemblage ofauxiliary door support attachment and consequent deformation ofthe MLG trailing ann axle. Abroken pin can leadto loss ofthe MLG trailing.arm axle, disconnecting the trailing arm from themain strut, which affects the airplane controllability onground. condition on an aviation product. The MeAldescribes the unsafe condition as: originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct anunsafe above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) ACTION: Final rule, AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products list (DOT), -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes; and EMB-145, -145E Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Mod RlN 2120-AA64 (Docket No. FAA-2009-0659; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM~060-AD; Amendmen 

## (~91 ;2.010-03-01- 39-*****; AD  -** -**} Federal Aviation Administration DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14 CFR Part 39

{

We areissuing this AD torequire actions to correct the unsafe condition on these
#### In re Floyd F. GREENE.

No. 54684.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 1974.

In re: Floyd F. Greene applying for writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. There is no error in the ruling of the trial court.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion an important constitutional issue is involved on which this Court has not previously adjudicated. In my view a full hearing in. this Court is warranted. The writ should be granted.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that this writ should be granted.

CALOGERO, J.,

concurs. While I would prefer to see this Court more fully consider the Constitutional issue here presented after granting the writ, I am satisfied that the result would be no different. Accordingly I join with the majority in denying this writ application. Art. 439.1 La. C.Cr.Pr. allowing a grant of immunity except for a prosecution for perjury, in my opinion does not violate either the La. Constitution, (Art. 1, Sec. II) or the U. S. Const. 5th Amendment.

MARCUS, J., recused himself.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7818

WILLIE THOMAS FORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE SAUNDERS, Warden; D. L. COOK, Lieutenant; J. H. LYLE, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-375-R)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Thomas Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Ford v. Saunders, No. CA-95-375-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2006154EN.01001001.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/10

---

Action brought on 18 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-186/06)

(2006/C 154/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration that, in relation to the plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration that, in relation to the plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

1

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States may not take advantage of their failure to designate Zones in accordance with the Directive in order to perform actions in those areas that may endanger its objectives and when, as in this case, the Member State has not designated protected areas where it ought to have done, the levels of protection required in an area of importance for birds are those laid down in Article 4(4) of the Directive.

In consequence, the Commission takes the view that, by having provided for and implemented the procedures leading to the authorisation of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal irrigation plan, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1

1

---
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert V. Condon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Robert V. Condon
------------------------------
Robert V. Condon
Chief Financial Officer
March 29, 2005

                                       1
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 3 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LARRY LECO BEVERLY,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-1040

(D.C. No. 97-CR-44-D)

(District of Colorado)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

The defendant Larry Leco Beverly was convicted after a jury trial of distributing

cocaine and possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §
2

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Mr. Beverly argues for the first time on appeal that his

conviction should be vacated because the government presented testimony from an

informant to whom it had promised that it would seek a downward departure at

sentencing in exchange for his cooperation. Mr. Beverly adds that the government

provided the informant with approximately $525 in cash in order to make controlled drug

buys. According to Mr. Beverly, the government’s offers violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2).

We recently rejected this argument in United States v. Singleton, No. 97-3178,

1999 WL 6469 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 1999) (en banc). We there concluded that “section

201(c)(2) was not intended to apply to the United States or its attorneys.” Id. at *5. 

Singleton controls here, and, as a result, we conclude that the government’s use of the

informant’s testimony did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
#### John W. EMERSON, Appellant, v. Robert R. CRANS, Appellee.

No. 73-1082.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
ex10-23.htm


    
      
        

      

    

    EXHIBIT
10.23

     

    WAIVER

     

    In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

     

    I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

     

    This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.

    
      
        
          
            
              
                	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	
                        Signature

                      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	
                        Print
      Name

                      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	
                        Title
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This part is based on the indicated provisions of the following: ( 1 ) The following provisions of the Act: ( i ) 1106—Disclosure of information in possession of agency.
( ii ) 1128J(d)—Reporting and Returning of Overpayments.
( iii ) 1851—Eligibility, election, and enrollment.
( iv ) 1852—Benefits and beneficiary protections.
( v ) 1853—Payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations.
( vi ) 1854—Premiums.
( vii ) 1855—Organization, licensure, and solvency of MA organizations.
( viii ) 1856—Standards.
( ix ) 1857—Contract requirements.
( x ) 1858—Special rules for MA Regional Plans.
( xi ) 1859—Definitions; enrollment restriction for certain MA plans.
( 2 ) 8 U.S.C. 1611—Aliens who are not qualified aliens ineligible for Federal public benefits.
( b ) *Scope.* This part establishes standards and sets forth the requirements, limitations, and procedures for Medicare services furnished, or paid for, by Medicare Advantage organizations through Medicare Advantage plans.
[63 FR 35068, June 26, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 4714, Jan. 28, 2005; 80 FR 7958, Feb. 12, 2015; 81 FR 80556, Nov. 15, 2016]
§ 417.420 Basic rules on enrollment and entitlement. ( a ) *Enrollment.* Eligible individuals who are entitled to benefits under both Part A and Part B of Medicare or only Part B may elect to receive those benefits through an HMO or CMP that has in effect a contract with CMS under subpart L of this part.
( b ) *Entitlement.* If a Medicare beneficiary enrolls with an HMO or CMP, CMS pays the HMO or CMP on his or her behalf for the services to which he or she is entitled.
( c ) *Beneficiary liability.* ( 1 ) The HMO or CMP may require payment, in the form of premiums or otherwise, from individuals for services not covered under Medicare, as well as deductible and coinsurance amounts attributable to Medicare covered services.
( 2 ) As described in § 417.448, Medicare enrollees of risk HMOs or CMPs are liable for services that they obtain from sources other than the HMO or CMP, unless the services are— ( i ) Emergency or urgently needed; or
( ii ) Determined, on appeal under subpart Q of this part, to be services that should have been furnished by the HMO or CMP.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38078, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45677, Sept. 1, 1995; 80 FR 7958, Feb. 12, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,765,570
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  539,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    35,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,493,899
<PP&E>                                         304,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                 79,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,255,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,054,040
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       82,308
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,118,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,255,026
<SALES>                                        1,683,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,683,591
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,181,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             51,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,549,516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,549,516)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.23)



</TABLE>
# C_2006108EN.01002301.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/23

---

Action brought on 27 February 2006 — ENERCON v OHIM

(Case T-71/06)

(2006/C 108/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ENERCON GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 November 2005 (Case 0179/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 November 2005 (Case 0179/2005-2);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional mark in the form of a section of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 — Application No 2496743

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the ground that the shape of the product covered by the mark is outside the usual range of forms. The three-dimensional mark is therefore distinctive.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 7(3) of the Regulation inasmuch as the Board of Appeal, after considering the circumstances, should have invited the applicant to provide further opinions, if this could have led to constituting evidence for the purpose of Article 7(3).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from - Form
10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         763,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,651,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (186,012)
<INVENTORY>                                    424,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,179,063
<PP&E>                                       1,117,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                (497,475)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,261,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,313,190
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       352,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,690,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,261,081
<SALES>                                     11,034,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,034,258
<CGS>                                        2,418,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,725,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (43,803)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,770,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                   716,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,053,844
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,053,844
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07



</TABLE>
#### § 2.1 Statutory authority for confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records.

Title 42, United States Code, section 290dd-2(g) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of section 290dd-2. Such regulations may contain such definitions, and may provide for such safeguards and procedures, including procedures and criteria for the issuance and scope of orders under subsection 290dd-2(b)(2)(C), as in the judgment of the Secretary are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of section 290dd-2, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.

[89 FR 12617, Feb. 16, 2024]