alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 325

AN ACT

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an opother purposes. attainment areas designated as severe, and for vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone non- tional provision for the reduction of work-related
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 325

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.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 325 EH

1 SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP RE2 DUCTION.

3 Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amend4 ed to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(B) The State may also, in its discretion, sub6 mit a revision at any time requiring employers in

7 such area to implement programs to reduce work-re8 lated vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees.

9 Such revision shall be developed in accordance with

10 guidance issued by the Administrator pursuant to

11 section 108(f) and may require that employers in

12 such area increase average passenger occupancy per

13 vehicle in commuting trips between home and the

14 workplace during peak travel periods. The guidance

15 of the Administrator may specify average vehicle oc16 cupancy rates which vary for locations within a non17 attainment area (suburban, center city, business dis18 trict) or among nonattainment areas reflecting exist19 ing occupancy rates and the availability of high oc20 cupancy modes. Any State required to submit a revi21 sion under this subparagraph (as in effect before the

22 date of enactment of this sentence) containing provi23 sions requiring employers to reduce work-related ve24 hicle trips and miles travelled by employees may, in

25 accordance with State law, remove such provisions

26 from the implementation plan, or withdraw its sub-
3

•HR 325 EH

1 mission, if the State notifies the Administrator, in

2 writing, that the State has undertaken, or will un3 dertake, one or more alternative methods that will

4 achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to be

5 achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





*CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO*


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Communication Intelligence Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Guido
      DiGregorio ,
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of my 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.








By: /s/Guido
      DiGregorio


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### Samy F. BISHAI, Appellant, v. Michael R. HALL et al., Appellees. Joseph P. MAGRE, Appellant, v. Michael R. HALL et al., Appellees.

Nos. 58561, 58562.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 17, 1980.

Earl M. Barker and Tracey I. Arpen, Jr., of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for Samy F. Bishai; and Stephen E. Day of Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for Joseph P. Magre, appellant.

Tyrie W. Boyer of Boyer, Tanzler, Blackburn & Boyer, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In view of our decision in *Simmons v. Faust,*358 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1978), the order of Judge Eastmoore holding the medical mediation act unconstitutional is not a trial court order appealable to this Court. This cause is therefore transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, with directions to remand to the judicial referee for termination of medical mediation jurisdiction in accordance with *Aldana*v. *Holub,*381 So.2d 231 (Fla.1980).*

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

*

 Ed. Note: This cause was transferred to the Supreme Court by the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 378 So.2d 857.
#### DOCUMATION, INC., and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Larry D. PENCE, Appellee.

No. UU-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 16, 1980.

Frank Marriott, Jr. of Gosney, Cameron, Parsons & Marriott, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Gavin D. Lee of Nance, Cacciatore & Sisserson, Melbourne, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We note that claimant has included a petition for attorney’s fees in his answer brief. Although in this workers’ compensation case, we have found the points raised by appellant to be without merit, we deny the request for attorney’s fees because it was improperly filed. We have previously determined that Rule 9.400(b) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a motion for attorney’s fees be filed separately. See *Florida Dept. of Commerce v. Davies,*379 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); *Wallace v. Walton Context Building,*383 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); *Munroe Memorial Hospital v. Thompson,*388 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

McCORD, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ„ concur. ■
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance sheet of Capital Industries, Inc. as of December 31, 1995,
and the related  condensed  consolidated  income  statement for the  three-month
period  then ended,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000726593                 
<NAME>                         Capital Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Mar-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              Oct-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           1,932
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,049
<PP&E>                                              59
<DEPRECIATION>                                      57
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              189
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         2,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                         423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,359
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (36)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (36)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (80)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (116)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.42)
        



</TABLE>
HomeBusiness and Human Rights...U.S. Department of State Guidance on Implementing the "UN Guiding Principles" for Transactions Linked to Foreign Government End-Users for Products or Services with Surveillance Capabilities

# 									U.S. Department of State Guidance on Implementing the "UN Guiding Principles" for Transactions Linked to Foreign Government End-Users for Products or Services with Surveillance Capabilities							

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

September 30, 2020

This guidance is a first-of-its-kind tool intended to provide practical and accessible human rights guidance to U.S. businesses seeking to prevent their products or services with surveillance capabilities from being misused by government end-users to commit human rights abuses.

It is meant to be an easy-to-use roadmap in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for assessing the human rights impacts of relevant products or services, and evaluating a series of considerations before engaging in transactions with governments. The guidance also recommends human rights safeguards if a U.S. business considers proceeding with a transaction, such as developing a grievance mechanism, and publicly reporting on sales practices.

Businesses that implement this guidance will be better positioned to demonstrate to their stakeholders and the public at large their commitment to respect human rights. They will be better suited to minimize reputational and operational risk. And, most importantly, they will be able to undertake more rigorous measures to mitigate the risk that their products or services will be misused to infringe on the rights of others.
Download Guidance						 [2 MB]

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBusinessHuman Rights

Back to Top
§ 441.730 Provider qualifications. ( a ) *Requirements.* The State must provide assurances that necessary safeguards have been taken to protect the health and welfare of enrollees in State plan HCBS, and must define in writing standards for providers (both agencies and individuals) of HCBS and for agents conducting individualized independent evaluation, independent assessment, and service plan development.
( b ) *Conflict of interest standards.* The State must define conflict of interest standards that ensure the independence of individual and agency agents who conduct (whether as a service or an administrative activity) the independent evaluation of eligibility for State plan HCBS, who are responsible for the independent assessment of need for HCBS, or who are responsible for the development of the service plan. The conflict of interest standards apply to all individuals and entities, public or private. At a minimum, these agents must not be any of the following: ( 1 ) Related by blood or marriage to the individual, or to any paid caregiver of the individual.
( 2 ) Financially responsible for the individual.
( 3 ) Empowered to make financial or health-related decisions on behalf of the individual.
( 4 ) Holding financial interest, as defined in § 411.354 of this chapter, in any entity that is paid to provide care for the individual.
( 5 ) Providers of State plan HCBS for the individual, or those who have an interest in or are employed by a provider of State plan HCBS for the individual, except when the State demonstrates that the only willing and qualified agent to perform independent assessments and develop person-centered service plans in a geographic area also provides HCBS, and the State devises conflict of interest protections including separation of agent and provider functions within provider entities, which are described in the State plan for medical assistance and approved by the Secretary, and individuals are provided with a clear and accessible alternative dispute resolution process.
( c ) *Training.* Qualifications for agents performing independent assessments and plans of care must include training in assessment of individuals whose physical, cognitive, or mental conditions trigger a potential need for home and community-based services and supports, and current knowledge of available resources, service options, providers, and best practices to improve health and quality of life outcomes.
#### § 455.12 State plan requirement.

A State plan must meet the requirements of §§ 455.13 through 455.23.

[52 FR 48817, Dec. 28, 1987]
#### SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PENSACOLA HOME & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. AC-439.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

L. Kathleen Horton of Clark, Partington, Hart, Hart & Johnson, Pensacola, for appellant.

Charles L. Hoffman, Jr. of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

South Carolina Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment finding it liable to its named insured for the remainder of the coverage after compensation of a loss-payable mortgagee, *see South Carolina Insurance v. Pensacola Home & Savings,*393 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The judgment provides for interest at the rate of 8% from August 22, 1978.

There is no error except in the award of pre-judgment interest. The parties agree that the appropriate rate is 6%, § 687.01 Fla.Stat. (1979). The claim of the named insured was made May 29, 1980, and was payable 60 days thereafter. Accordingly, the judgment is modified to provide for 6% interest from July 29, 1980, and as modified is AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 21, 2011

On June 21st, 2011 we held a conference call with Cummins to discuss concerns raised by

Cummins regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Cummins 

raised concerns during the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed 

rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty

OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.

1,2

 Specifically, their 

comments include a request for a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid 

applications until 2020. Attendees from this meeting are shown in the table below.

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Mark Stepper Cummins

Morgan Andreae Cummins

Thomas A. Dollmeyer Cummins

Benjamin J. Zwissler Cummins

Bill Ellison Cummins

Greg M. Pataky Cummins

Hwei Jen Kachler Cummins

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2119

GOLDEN CORRAL CORP.; GOLDEN CORRAL FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00349-D)

Submitted: July 20, 2022 Decided: August 11, 2022

Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Gregg McDougal, Lawrence R. Duke, William R. Hartzell, MCDOUGAL 

LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Robert W. Fisher, James M. 

Bauer, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jennifer A. Welch, Theodore B. Smyth, 

CRANFILL SUMNER LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jonathan D. Hacker, Jenya Godina, 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2119 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/11/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Golden Corral Corporation and Golden Corral Franchising Systems, Inc.

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Golden Corral”), appeal the district court’s order 

granting Illinois Union Insurance Company’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment 

on the pleadings in Golden Corral’s action seeking insurance benefits for business losses

Golden Corral incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Golden 

Corral Corp. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., No. 5:20-cv-00349-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2021); see 

also Uncork & Create LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 926, 933-34 (4th Cir. 2022) 

(holding that insurance “policy’s coverage for business income loss and other expenses 

d[id] not apply to [plaintiff’s] claim for financial losses [caused by the COVID-19 

pandemic] in the absence of any material destruction or material harm to its covered 

premises” and further “observ[ing] that our holding is consistent with the unanimous 

decisions by our sister circuits, which have applied various states’ laws to similar insurance 

claims and policy provisions”).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2119 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/11/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
##### 



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 S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Richard E. Hoffmann, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The 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 Partnership. S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.BY:
    
    SM7 APARTMENT INVESTORS INC.
General PartnerDate: March 23, 2004
    
    BY:
    
    /s/ Richard E. HoffmannName: Richard E. HoffmannTitle: Chief Executive Officer, Director, President and Treasurer
HomeNATO Recent Actions...NATO – Ottawa Agreement – Notification of Signature; North Macedonia, June 2, 2022

# 									NATO – Ottawa Agreement – Notification of Signature; North Macedonia, June 2, 2022							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [103 KB]

Tags

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Macedonia

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the Legal Adviser Releases...Meyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of State

# 									Meyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of State							

Other Release

Office of the Legal Adviser

January 17, 2023

On January 17, 2023, the Department of State announced an agreement to settle *Meyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of State,*EEOC No. 531-2015-00092X, a longstanding class action pending at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over successive administrations that challenges the Department’s Worldwide Availability requirement for career Foreign Service applicants. Links to a copy of the signed settlement agreement and to an accessible version of the settlement agreement are posted below.

Settlement Agreement (Original Version) [9 MB]****

Settlement Agreement (Accessible Version) [287 KB]

Exhibits to the settlement agreement will be available soon. Please check back.

Tags

Equal OpportunityLegal AdviserOffice of the Legal Adviser

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1)  The 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/ Paul W. Mobley
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Paul W. Mobley
                                           Chief Executive Officer of
                                           Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                           March 25, 2003