alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 435.320 Medically needy coverage of the aged in States that cover individuals receiving SSI. If the agency provides Medicaid to individuals receiving SSI and elects to cover the medically needy, it may provide Medicaid to individuals who— ( a ) Are 65 years of age and older, as specified in § 435.520; and
( b ) Meet the income and resource requirements of subpart I of this part.
[46 FR 47986, Sept. 30, 1981]
# C_2006154EN.01000701.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006 — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

(Case C-165/06)

(2006/C 154/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leasys SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

Defendant:

Question referred

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net output value arising from regular engagement in independent activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on production activities)?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2006029EN.01001201.xml

| 4.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4067 — Blackstone/Lion Capital/CSEB)

(2006/C 29/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 January 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 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 32006M4067. 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 32006M4067. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                       SUBSIDIARIES OF DIONEX CORPORATION

        The following table sets forth the names of the subsidiaries of the
Registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of
each, and the names under which subsidiaries do business as of June 30, 2002.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                State or other
                                Jurisdiction of           Name under which
                                incorporation or          subsidiary does
Name of Subsidiary              organization              business
------------------              ----------------          ----------------
<S>                             <C>                       <C>
Dionex (U.K.) Limited           England                   Dionex (U.K.) Ltd.

Dionex GmbH                     Federal Republic          Dionex GmbH
                                of Germany

Dionex S.r.l.                   Italy                     Dionex S.r.l

Dionex S.A.                     France                    Dionex S.A.

Dionex Export Corporation       U.S. Virgin Islands       Dionex Export
                                                          Corporation

Dionex Canada Ltd./Ltee.        Canada                    Dionex Canada
                                                          Ltd./Ltee

Dionex B.V.                     The Netherlands           Dionex B.V.

Nippon Dionex K.K.              Japan                     Nippon Dionex K.K.

Dionex N.V.                     Belgium                   Dionex N.V.

Dionex (Switzerland) AG         Switzerland               Dionex(Switzerland) AG

Dionex Austria GmbH             Austria                   Dionex Austria GmbH

Dionex Softron GmbH             Germany                   Dionex Softron GmbH

Dionex Holding GmbH             Germany                   Dionex Holding GmbH

LC Packings Nederlands B.V.     Netherland                LC Packings
                                                          Nederlands B.V.

LC Packings (U.S.A.) Inc.       United States of          LC Packings (U.S.A.)
                                America                   Inc.

Dionex Denmark A/S              Denmark                   Dionex Denmark A/S

Dionex China Ltd.               China                     Dionex China Ltd.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.5.1


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 1

TO

THE MACERICH COMPANY

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

FOR EXECUTIVES
 (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1,
2003)


 


WHEREAS, The
Macerich Company (the “Company”) has established and maintains The Macerich
Company Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (As Amended and Restated
Effective as of January 1, 2003) (the “Plan”) to provide supplemental
retirement income benefits through deferrals of salary and bonuses for certain
Eligible Employees (as defined in the Plan); and


 


WHEREAS, the Plan
was frozen December 31, 2004, so that the benefits provided thereunder
would be exempt from application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (the “Code”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
exercise of discretion permitted under certain provisions of the Plan could
subject its benefits to the application of Section 409A of the Code; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
has determined that it is appropriate and desirable to amend the Plan pursuant
to Section 9.4 of the Plan as set forth herein to eliminate such
discretion.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective January 1, 2005.


 


1.               Section 7.2 of the Plan is hereby
deleted.


 


2.               The second sentence of Section 9.4
of the Plan is amended to read as follows:


 


In the event that this Plan is terminated,
the amounts credited to a Participant’s Deferral Account and Company Matching
Account shall be distributed to the Participant or, in the event of his or her
death, to his or her Beneficiary in a lump sum within thirty (30) days
following the date of termination; provided, however, if the foregoing
provision would cause any amounts deferred under this Plan to be subject to Section 409A
of the Code, such provision shall not apply and distributions to the
Participants or their Beneficiaries shall be made on the dates on which the
Participants or their Beneficiaries would receive benefits hereunder without
regard to the termination of the Plan.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused its duly authorized officers to execute this amendment
this 30th day of October, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  THE MACERICH COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Executive Vice President, Chief

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Legal Officer & Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Thomas E. Hern

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Thomas E. O’Hern

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Executive Vice President,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
**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 Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher
      Chipman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Christopher M. ChipmanChristopher
                M. ChipmanChief
                Financial OfficerJune
                11, 2008
§ 435.10 State plan requirements. A State plan must— ( a ) Provide that the requirements of this part are met; and
( b ) Specify the groups to whom Medicaid is provided, as specified in subparts B, C, and D of this part, and the conditions of eligibility for individuals in those groups.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Georgia “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Draft Law

# 									Georgia “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Draft Law							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

April 18, 2024

We are gravely disappointed by the Georgian parliament’s decision to advance Kremlin-inspired “foreign influence” legislation.  As the EU has stated, passage of this law could compromise Georgia’s progress on its EU path.  We join our European allies in urging Georgia not to enact legislation that goes against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Georgian citizens — the desire to integrate fully into the EU.  Georgia has a vibrant civil society that serves its citizens and works to improve Georgia’s economy.  If adopted, the proposed legislation could limit freedom of expression, stigmatize organizations that deliver these benefits to the citizens of Georgia, and impede independent media organizations working to provide Georgians with access to high quality information.  Such Kremlin-inspired legislation is not appropriate if the goal is to promote transparency.  We urge all parties to protect the right of peaceful assembly.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCivil SocietyEconomic AffairsGeorgiaLawOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/18 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.46 N 76.63 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



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

Editorial Note on Subpart H of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart H of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35098, 35099, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.386 Liquidity. ( a ) A PSO must have sufficient cash flow to meet its financial obligations as they become due and payable.
( b ) To determine whether the PSO meets the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, CMS will examine the following— ( 1 ) The PSO's timeliness in meeting current obligations;
( 2 ) The extent to which the PSO's current ratio of assets to liabilities is maintained at 1:1 including whether there is a declining trend in the current ratio over time; and
( 3 ) The availability of outside financial resources to the PSO.
( c ) If CMS determines that a PSO fails to meet the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, CMS will require the PSO to initiate corrective action and pay all overdue obligations.
( d ) If CMS determines that a PSO fails to meet the requirement of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, CMS may require the PSO to initiate corrective action to— ( 1 ) Change the distribution of its assets;
( 2 ) Reduce its liabilities; or
( 3 ) Make alternative arrangements to secure additional funding to restore the PSO's current ratio to 1:1.
( e ) If CMS determines that there has been a change in the availability of outside financial resources as required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, CMS requires the PSO to obtain funding from alternative financial resources.
[63 FR 25378, May 7, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 71678, Dec. 22, 1999]
#### § 423.48 Information about Part D.

Each Part D plan must provide, on an annual basis, and in a format and using standard terminology that CMS may specify in guidance, the information necessary to enable CMS to provide to current and potential Part D eligible individuals the information they need to make informed decisions among the available choices for Part D coverage.
#### RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Beverly HARGROVE, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, Annie Pearl Holmes and Annie Pearl Holmes, Individually, Appellees.

No. 74-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 3, 1975.

J. Richard Caldwell, Jr., of Pitts, Eu-banks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert B. Alford of Whitaker & Koepke & Associates, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant-insurer the right to any reimbursement for personal injury protection benefits paid to the plaintiff below and for equitable distribution under the provisions of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. We reverse upon authority of *Herrera v. Gosnell,*Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 876; *Reyes v. Banks,*Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 39 and *American Fire and Casualty Company v. Oller,*Fla.App.1975, 313 So.2d 67.

The order appealed from is reversed and this cause remanded for further consideration in light of the principles announced in the cases above referred to.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, C. J., OWEN, J., and YAWN, THERON A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael P. Oliver, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Michael P. Oliver                                                            
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Michael P. Oliver
        Chief Executive Officer
        Date: November 14, 2012
Exhibit 10.8


 


AMENDMENT
TO CITY NATIONAL CORPORATION


1995
OMINIBUS PLAN


 


WHEREAS, the Company has
previously adopted the City National Corporation 1995 Omnibus Plan (the “Plan”)
on February 22, 1995, and the Plan was approved by the shareholders of the
Company on April 18, 1995, and the Plan was previously amended on April 16,
1997; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board is
authorized to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 7.6(a) of the Plan;
and


 


WHEREAS, the Board has been
advised that shareholder approval of this Amendment to the Plan is not required
by Rule 16b-3 or Section 424 of the Code or to comply with any other
applicable law, and has determined that shareholder approval is not necessary
or advisable for any other reason;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 7.6(a) of
the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.             Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, the
Committee may grant to any Eligible Employee (including Other Eligible Persons)
an Award (including, but not limited to restricted units or other deferred
Awards) which will be payable in shares of Common Stock (a “Share Award”)
and/or in Cash Only Awards on such terms as the Committee may determine in its
sole discretion.  Such Awards may be made as additional compensation for
services or may be in lieu of other compensation which the Eligible Employee is
entitled to receive from the Company.  All such Share Awards and Cash Only
Awards shall constitute Awards for all purposes of the Plan, and shall be
subject to the limits on Awards which are payable in Shares and in cash which
are contained in the Plan.


 


2.             Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, the
Committee may grant Dividend Equivalents in connection with any Award which is
made under the Plan on such terms as the Committee may determine in its sole
discretion.


 


3.             All capitalized terms which are used herein shall have
the same definitions which are contained in the Plan, unless otherwise defined
herein.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 21.01
                 SILICON VALLEY RESEARCH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                 March 31, 1998

 
                                                                 Percentages
                                              Organized Under     of Voting
                                                  Laws of      Securities Owned
                                              ---------------  ----------------
Silicon Valley Research, Inc. (Registrant)      California           ---



   SUBSIDIARIES:
   ------------

Silicon Valley Research, Inc. K.K.              Japan                 97%

Silicon Valley Research, Inc. - Asia Pacific    Taiwan               100%

Quality I.C. Corporation                        Texas                100%
 


                 All of the above subsidiaries are included in
       Silicon Valley Research, Inc.'s Consolidated Financial Statements.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.151 Scope and applicability. ( a ) *General rules.* This subpart sets forth the appeals procedures that a State must make available as follows: ( 1 ) To a nursing facility (NF) that is dissatisfied with a State's finding of noncompliance that has resulted in one of the following adverse actions: ( i ) Denial or termination of its provider agreement.
( ii ) Imposition of a civil money penalty or other alternative remedy.
( 2 ) To an intermediate care facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID) that is dissatisfied with a State's finding of noncompliance that has resulted in the denial, termination, or nonrenewal of its provider agreement.
( 3 ) To an NF or ICF/IID that is dissatisfied with a determination as to the effective date of its provider agreement.
( b ) *Special rules.* This subpart also sets forth the special rules that apply in particular circumstances, the limitations on the grounds for appeal, and the scope of review during a hearing.
[61 FR 32348, June 24, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 43935, Aug. 18, 1997]
41302.

#### CAMERON v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

George Milton Cameron was convicted of burglary. The evidence showed that he was arrested while in possession of some of the stolen property within two hours of the time of the burglary. Thereafter, his motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds and 13 special grounds was overruled and he now assigns error on such judgment adverse to him. *Held:*

Special grounds numbered 4, 12 and 13 complain of the admission of evidence but fail to set forth or refer to the evidence objected to. Such grounds are incomplete and present nothing for decision. See *Hill v. State,*110 Ga. App. 631 (1) (139 SE2d 450), and cases cited.

The special grounds numbered 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 complain of *692the admission of evidence over objection but fail to set forth the ground of objection made at the time the evidence was offered. Such grounds are incomplete and present nothing for decision. See *Luke v. State,*183 Ga. 302 (1) (188 SE 542), and citations.

Argued May 4, 1965

Decided May 13, 1965.

*Ben S. Atkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lewis R. Slaton, Jr., Solicitor General, Carter Goode, J. Walter LeCraw,*contra.

A ground of a motion for new trial complaining of the abridgment of the right to a thorough and sifting cross examination “because . . . [the State’s] . . . objection was to the effect that ‘that is not the way [to] impeach a witness,’ ” but which shows no ruling of the trial court, presents nothing for decision. See *Cooper v. Chamblee,*114 Ga. 116 (39 SE 917); *Rozar v. State,*93 Ga. App. 207 (2) (91 SE2d 131). Accordingly, special ground numbered 9 of the defendant’s motion for new trial shows no harmful error.

A ground of a motion for new trial which complains of remarks or comments made by the judge during the progress of a trial but which fails to show any objection or motion for mistrial is incomplete and presents no question for decision. See *Clifton v. State,*187 Ga. 502, 509 (2 SE2d 102); *Perdue v. State,*135 Ga. 277 (69 SE 184); *Morris v. State,*185 Ga. 67 (194 SE 214). Accordingly, special ground 10, if considered approved by the trial court, shows no ground for reversal.

Special grounds 14 and 15 of the amended motion for new trial are mere amplification of the usual general grounds and will not be considered separately.

“The failure of the court to charge on the subject of expert testimony was no cause for new trial, there having been no request for a charge on that subject.” *Godwin v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,*120 Ga. 747 (6) (48 SE 139).

Recent possession of stolen goods not satisfactorily explained is sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty in a burglary case. *Ash v. State,*109 Ga. App, 177 (4) (135 SE2d 507); *Jackson v. State,*111 Ga. App. 192 (141 SE2d 177). The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s amended motion for new trial for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### Thomas J. BRENNAN et al., Appellants, v. SAXON BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 74-1034.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.