alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT INCLUDED IN PART I, ITEM 1 OF 
THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 
NOVEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          6,043,567
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,009,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                      383,000
<INVENTORY>                                     2,102,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,110,822
<PP&E>                                          1,882,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,054,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,450,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,698,120
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                          441,451
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     8,271,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,619,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,450,762
<SALES>                                         1,837,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,837,198
<CGS>                                             940,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     940,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,402,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 18,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,303,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,303,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,303,313)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.09)


        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1 Program description.

Title XXI of the Social Security Act, enacted in 1997 by the Balanced Budget Act, authorizes Federal grants to States for provision of child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children. The program is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and administered by the States. Within broad Federal rules, each State decides eligible groups, types and ranges of services, payment levels for benefit coverage, and administrative and operating procedures.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 21, 2023. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 21, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0129. GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ v. DOMINIC SHANE WITT. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 22CV01341
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WILBERT THIBODEAUX

NO. 2023 KW 1188

JANUARY 18, 2024

In Re: Wilbert Thibodeaux, applying for supervisory writs, 

16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, No. 

13- 190149. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion for production and in camera

inspection of grand jury testimony. See State v. Francis, 2018- 

1395 ( La. 9/ 21/ 18), 252 So. 3d 875, 876 ( per curiam). 

JMG

WRC

WIL
# C_2006108EN.01000603.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/6

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2006 by Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the Euorpean Communities

(Case C-120/06P)

(2006/C 108/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) (represented by: I. Van Bael, F. Di Gianni and A Cevese, Avvocati)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | On the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act; |
| --- | --- |

—

On the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;

| — | in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance;

| — | in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance;

| — | grant such further and other relief as fairness might require. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant such further and other relief as fairness might require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the judgment under appeal is defective in that it fails totally to state grounds concerning one of the principal arguments raised, namely, that in the specific factual circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to rely on the decision adopted by the Appeal Board of the World Trade Organisation to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purpose of their claim for compensation.

---
#### Ronald GRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-1887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 11, 1980.

Ronald Gray, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Philip J. BERNSTEIN, Appellant, v. COMMON MARKETS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 74-1364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2006131EN.01004301.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/43

---

Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Mülhens v OHIM

(Case T-93/06)

(2006/C 131/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa (Spa, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the defendant of 11 January 2006 (Case No 2746/2004); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the defendant of 11 January 2006 (Case No 2746/2004);

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark 'MINERAL SPA' for goods in class 3 (soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, dentifrices)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de SPA

Mark or sign cited: several trade marks containing the word 'SPA' and, in particular, the Benelux word trade mark 'SPA' for goods in class 32

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application for registration of the mark

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 484.202 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Case-mix index* means a scale that measures the relative difference in resource intensity among different groups in the clinical model.

*Discipline* means one of the six home health disciplines covered under the Medicare home health benefit (skilled nursing services, home health aide services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy services, speech- language pathology services, and medical social services).

*Furnishing Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) using a disposable device* means the device is paid separately (specified by the assigned CPT® code) and does not include payment for the professional services. The nursing and therapy services are to be included as part of the payment under the home health prospective payment system.

*HHCAHPS* stands for Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems.

*HH QRP* stands for Home Health Quality Reporting Program.

*Home health market basket index* means an index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in home health services.

*Rural area* means an area defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C) of this chapter.

*Urban area* means an area defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this chapter.

[70 FR 68142, Nov. 9, 2005, as amended at 81 FR 76796, Nov. 3, 2016; 83 FR 56628, Nov. 13, 2018; 84 FR 60644, Nov. 8, 2019; 88 FR 77878, Nov. 13, 2023]
#### Marion Appeal

*Paul R. Selecky,*for Liquor Control Board.

*Rocco C. Falvello,*for appellants.

September 21, 1954.

Aponick, J.,

This is an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board refusing to transfer a liquor license. Counsel have stipulated that the record of the hearing held by the board’s examiner should be considered as having been taken by the court.

There is no dispute as to the facts. Appellants are husband and wife. They own the building to be licensed. Prom 1933 to 1951 the husband had a liquor license and during that time was thrice cited by the board for violations; in 1938 his license was suspended for two months for a variety of violations; in 1945 it was *430suspended for 35 days because of Sunday sales. There were no arrests or convictions in connection with any of these citations nor is there any record of any arrest or conviction of any kind against either applicant.

In February of 1951, after the last citation, but before its disposition, the license was sold to John and Edward Allen, who became lessees of the premises. The written lease provided that the license could not be transferred from the premises and at the expiration of the lease was to be transferred to appellants or their nominee.

The only reason assigned by the board for its refusal to transfer is that the male appellant was not of good repute because of the three citations above. There is in the record a letter from appellants’ pastor who states that they are “good church members” and “good people”, statements made with knowledge of the above citations. (The letter was accepted by agreement in lieu of the clergyman’s presence at the hearing.)

More than three years have elapsed since the last citation and from its disposition. A somewhat similar situation was presented in Appeal of Russell J. Balliet, 22 Lehigh 444. It was there held that inasmuch as the legislature provided in section 410 of the (special sessions) Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. 15, 47 PS §744-410, that a revocation should not be a bar beyond three years, by analogy, the stigma for violation of the liquor laws should ordinarily not extend beyond the same period. To the same effect are Zeamer’s License Appeal, 50 Lane. 427, and Refusal of Liquor License — Roggi, 17 Wash. 104. There is nothing in the instant case to require an extension beyond the three years which have already elapsed.

Accordingly, the appeal is sustained and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is directed to make the transfer as prayed for.
§ 456.481 Admission certification and plan of care. If a facility provides inpatient psychiatric services to a beneficiary under age 21— ( a ) The admission certification by the review team required in § 441.152 satisfies the requirement for physician certification of need for care in §§ 456.60, 456.160, and 456.360; and
( b ) The development and review of the plan of care required in § 441.154 satisfies the requirement for physician recertification of need for care in the sections cited in paragraph (a) and the requirement for establishment and periodic review of the plan of care in §§ 456.80, 456.180, and 456.380.
( c ) The plan of care must be established by the team described in § 441.156.
[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 61 FR 38399, July 24, 1996]
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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge;  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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


|                                           | 
|------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ Kenneth D. Gibbons                     | 
|Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer | 

April 6, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                         TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              RULE 13A -14(B) AND
                            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 Textron Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
J. Cullen, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to sec. 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.

                                          TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                          /s/ THOMAS J. CULLEN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Thomas J. Cullen
                                          Executive Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer

Date: February 26, 2004
#### MISSISSIPPI STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY v. James T. STEELE.

No. 48130.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 28, 1975.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Watkins, Pyle, Ludlam, Winter & Stennis, Ernest G. Taylor, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Wells, Gerald, Brand, Watters & Cox, Scott P. Hemleben, Frank T. Moore, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Justice.

The opinion rendered today in numbers 48,121 and 48,122, styled respectively *Mississippi State Board of Pharmacy v. Steele*and *Mississippi State Board of Pharmacy v. Schuh,*Miss., 317 So.2d 33, is disposi-tive of this case.

For this reason, the decree of the Chancery Court reversing and setting aside the order of the State Board of Pharmacy must be and is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH, SUGG and WALKER, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.76 Direct GME payments: Calculation of payments for GME costs. A hospital's Medicare payment for the costs of an approved residency program is calculated as follows: ( a ) *Step one.* The hospital's updated per resident amount (as determined under § 413.77) is multiplied by the actual number of FTE residents (as determined under § 413.79). This result is the aggregate approved amount for the cost reporting period.
( b ) *Step two.* The product derived in step one is multiplied by the hospital's Medicare patient load.
( c ) *Step three.* For portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after January 1, 1998, the product derived in step one is multiplied by the proportion of the hospital's inpatient days attributable to individuals who are enrolled under a risk-sharing contract with an eligible organization under section 1876 of the Act and who are entitled to Medicare Part A or with a Medicare + Choice organization under Title XVIII, Part C of the Act. This amount is multiplied by an applicable payment percentage equal to— ( 1 ) 20 percent for 1998;
( 2 ) 40 percent for 1999;
( 3 ) 60 percent in 2000;
( 4 ) 80 percent in 2001; and
( 5 ) 100 percent in 2002 and subsequent years.
( d ) *Step four.* Effective for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after January 1, 2000, the product derived from step three is reduced by a percentage equal to the ratio of the Medicare + Choice nursing and allied health payment “pool” for the current calendar year as described at § 413.87(f), to the projected total Medicare + Choice direct GME payments made to all hospitals for the current calendar year.
( e ) *Step five.* ( 1 ) For portions of cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 1998 and before January 1, 2000, add the results of steps two and three.
( 2 ) Effective for portions of cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2000, add the results of steps two and four.
( f ) *Step six.* The product derived in step two is apportioned between Part A and Part B of Medicare based on the ratio of Medicare's share of reasonable costs excluding GME costs attributable to each part as determined through the Medicare cost report.
[69 FR 49254, Aug. 11, 2004]
§ 447.520 Federal Financial Participation (FFP): Conditions relating to physician-administered drugs. ( a ) No FFP is available for physician-administered drugs for which a State has not required the submission of claims using codes that identify the drugs sufficiently for the State to bill a manufacturer for rebates. ( 1 ) As of January 1, 2006, a State must require providers to submit claims for single source, physician-administered drugs using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes or NDC numbers to secure rebates.
( 2 ) As of January 1, 2007, a State must require providers to submit claims for physician-administered single source drugs and the 20 multiple source drugs identified by the Secretary using NDC numbers.
( b ) As of January 1, 2008, a State must require providers to submit claims for the 20 multiple source physician-administered drugs identified by the Secretary as having the highest dollar value under the Medicaid Program using NDC numbers to secure rebates.
( c ) A State that requires additional time to comply with the requirements of this section may apply to the Secretary for an extension.