alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Felix A. PRICE v. Judge SCHULINGKAMP, Orleans Criminal Judicial District Court.

No. 66742.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1980.

In re Felix A. Price, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. No. 269-823.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1850,  as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The  undersigned,  the Chief Financial  Officer of The Wilber  Corporation  (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

      (a)   the Form 10-K of the Company for the Annual  Period  Ended  December
            31, 2004,  filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission (the "Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                        /s/ Joseph E. Sutaris
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Joseph E. Sutaris
                                        Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                        Date: March 18, 2005
                                              --------------

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to The Wilber Corporation and will be
retained by The Wilber  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                                                            83-K
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3523

To require the relocation of a National Weather Service radar tower which

is on Sulphur Mountain near Ojai, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1996

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Science

A BILL

To require the relocation of a National Weather Service

radar tower which is on Sulphur Mountain near Ojai,

California.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELOCATION OF RADAR TOWER.

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO RELOCATE RADAR TOWER.—

5 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment

6 of this Act, the Secretary shall relocate the National

7 Weather Service radar tower which is located on Sulphur

8 Mountain near Ojai, California, to a site which complies

9 with the criteria listed in subsection (b).
2

•HR 3523 IH

1 (b) CRITERIA FOR NEW SITE.—The new site for the

2 radar tower referred to in subsection (a) shall be selected

3 so that the relocation—

4 (1) will not result in degradation of service; and

5 (2) will minimize the negative impacts of the

6 radar tower and its emissions on residential areas.

7 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after the date

8 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit

9 a report to Congress that includes—

10 (1) an identification of the new site selected for

11 the radar tower; and

12 (2) evidence which was considered in reaching

13 the conclusion that relocation of the radar tower to

14 the site selected meets the criteria listed in sub15 section (b).

16 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

17 For the purposes of this Act—

18 (1) the term ‘‘degradation of service’’ means

19 any decrease in or failure to maintain the quality

20 and type of weather services provided by the Na21 tional Weather Service to the public; and

22 (2) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

23 of Commerce.

Æ
HomeDSS Press Releases...Justice Department Charges Four Iranian Nationals for Multi-Year Cyber Campaign Targeting U.S. Companies

# 									Justice Department Charges Four Iranian Nationals for Multi-Year Cyber Campaign Targeting U.S. Companies							

Department of Justice Release

April 23, 2024

For Immediate release – April 23, 2024

**Click here to read more about this**

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyCyber SecurityCybersecurity ExchangeDistrict of ColumbiaDSS ReleasesIran

Back to Top
§ 423.2325 Provision of applicable discounts. ( a ) *General rule.* On behalf of the manufacturers, Part D sponsors must provide applicable beneficiaries with applicable discounts on applicable drugs at the point-of-sale.
( b ) *Discount determination.* ( 1 ) Part D sponsors must determine the following: ( i ) Whether an enrollee is an applicable beneficiary (as defined in § 423.100).
( ii ) Whether a Part D drug is an applicable drug (as defined in § 423.100).
( iii ) The amount of the applicable discount (as defined in § 423.2305) to be provided at the point-of-sale.
( 2 ) Part D sponsors must make retroactive adjustments to the applicable discount as necessary to reflect changes to the claim or beneficiary eligibility determined after the date of dispensing.
( 3 ) Part D sponsors must determine whether any affected beneficiaries need to be notified by the Part D sponsor that an applicable drug is eligible for Part D coverage whenever CMS specifies a retroactive effective date for a labeler code and notify such beneficiaries.
( c ) *Exception to point-of-sale requirement.* Part D sponsors must provide an applicable discount for applicable drugs submitted by applicable beneficiaries via paper claims, including out-of-network and in-network paper claims, if such claims are payable under the Part D plan.
( d ) *Collection of data.* Part D sponsors must provide CMS with appropriate data on the applicable discounts provided by the Part D sponsors in a manner specified by CMS.
( e ) *Supplemental benefits.* ( 1 ) An applicable discount must be applied to beneficiary cost-sharing after supplemental benefits (as defined in § 423.100) have been applied to the claim for an applicable drug.
( 2 ) No applicable discount is available if supplemental benefits (as defined in § 423.100) eliminate the coverage gap so that a beneficiary has zero cost-sharing.
( f ) *Other health or prescription drug coverage.* An applicable discount must be applied to beneficiary cost-sharing when Part D is the primary payer before any other health or prescription drug coverage is applied.
( g ) *Pharmacy prompt payment.* Part D sponsors must reimburse a network pharmacy (as defined in § 423.100) the amount of the applicable discount no later than the applicable number of calendar days after the date of dispensing of an applicable drug. For long-term care and home infusion pharmacies, the date of dispensing can be interpreted as the date the pharmacy submits the discounted claim for reimbursement.
( h ) *Treatment of employer group waiver plans.* As of 2014, Part D sponsors offering employer group waiver plans must provide applicable discounts to applicable beneficiaries who are employer group waiver plan enrollees as determined consistent with the defined standard benefit.
[77 FR 22172, Apr. 12, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 7966, Feb. 12, 2015]
#### James SWANNER, a Child, Petitioner, v. Thomas T. TRETTIS, Jr., County Court Judge, Acting Circuit Judge, Collier County, Respondent.

No. 74-502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1974.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:
January 30, 2006
    
    /s/ Bruce J. BarrettBruce J. Barrett, President and Chief
Executive OfficerDated:
January 30, 2006
    
    /s/ William M. IaconaWilliam M. Iacona, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, Controller and Treasurer
#### Monserratt SANTOS, etc., Petitioner, v. CITY HOMES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 45726.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1975.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
<PAGE>




           EXHIBIT 21--SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                   SCT Software & Resource Management Corporation(1)

                   SCT Financial Corporation(1)

                   SCT Government Systems, Inc.(1)

                   SCT Property, Inc.(1)

                   SCT Utility Systems, Inc.(1)

                   SCT International Limited(2)

                   SCT Manufacturing & Distribution Systems, Inc.(1)

                   SCT Technologies (Canada) Inc.(3)

                   Systems & Computer Technology International B.V.(4)

                   Fygir Logistic Information Systems B.V.(4)

                   SCT Holdings Corporation(1)

                   Systems & Computer Technology International S.A.R.L.(5)

                   SCT Technologies de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.(6)

                   Systems & Computer Technology de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.(6)

                   --------------------
                   (1) Incorporated in Delaware
                   (2) Incorporated in the United Kingdom
                   (3) Incorporated in Ontario, Canada
                   (4) Incorporated in the Netherlands
                   (5) Incorporated in France
                   (6) Incorporated in Mexico
§ 435.1110 Presumptive eligibility determined by hospitals. ( a ) *Basic rule.* The agency must provide Medicaid during a presumptive eligibility period to individuals who are determined by a qualified hospital, on the basis of preliminary information, to be presumptively eligible subject to the same requirements as apply to the State options under §§ 435.1102 and 435.1103, but regardless of whether the agency provides Medicaid during a presumptive eligibility period under such sections.
( b ) *Qualified hospitals.* A qualified hospital is a hospital that— ( 1 ) Participates as a provider under the State plan or a demonstration under section 1115 of the Act, notifies the agency of its election to make presumptive eligibility determinations under this section, and agrees to make presumptive eligibility determinations consistent with State policies and procedures;
( 2 ) At State option, assists individuals in completing and submitting the full application and understanding any documentation requirements; and
( 3 ) Has not been disqualified by the agency in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) *State options for bases of presumptive eligibility.* The agency may— ( 1 ) Limit the determinations of presumptive eligibility which hospitals may elect to make under this section to determinations based on income for all of the populations described in §§ 435.1102 and 435.1103; or
( 2 ) Permit hospitals to elect to make presumptive eligibility determinations on additional bases approved under the State plan or an 1115 demonstration.
( d ) *Disqualification of hospitals.* ( 1 ) The agency may establish standards for qualified hospitals related to the proportion of individuals determined presumptively eligible for Medicaid by the hospital who: ( i ) Submit a regular application, as described in § 435.907, before the end of the presumptive eligibility period; or
( ii ) Are determined eligible for Medicaid by the agency based on such application.
( 2 ) The agency must take action, including, but not limited to, disqualification of a hospital as a qualified hospital under this section, if the agency determines that the hospital is not— ( i ) Making, or is not capable of making, presumptive eligibility determinations in accordance with applicable state policies and procedures; or
( ii ) Meeting the standard or standards established by the agency under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) The agency may disqualify a hospital as a qualified hospital under this paragraph only after it has provided the hospital with additional training or taken other reasonable corrective action measures to address the issue.
[78 FR 42304, July 15, 2013]
#### § 435.400 Scope.

This subpart prescribes general requirements for determining the eligibility of both categorically and medically needy individuals specified in subparts B, C, and D of this part.
§ 438.50 State Plan requirements. ( a ) *General rule.* A State plan that requires Medicaid beneficiaries to enroll in MCOs, PCCMs, or PCCM entities must comply with the provisions of this section, except when the State imposes the requirement— ( 1 ) As part of a demonstration project under section 1115(a) of the Act; or
( 2 ) Under a waiver granted under section 1915(b) of the Act.
( b ) *State plan information.* The plan must specify— ( 1 ) The types of entities with which the State contracts.
( 2 ) The payment method it uses (for example, whether FFS or capitation).
( 3 ) Whether it contracts on a comprehensive risk basis.
( 4 ) The process the State uses to involve the public in both design and initial implementation of the managed care program and the methods it uses to ensure ongoing public involvement once the State plan has been implemented.
( c ) *State plan assurances.* The plan must provide assurances that the State meets applicable requirements of the following statute and regulations: ( 1 ) Section 1903(m) of the Act, for MCOs and MCO contracts.
( 2 ) Section 1905(t) of the Act, for PCCMs and PCCM or PCCM entity contracts.
( 3 ) Section 1932(a)(1)(A) of the Act, for the State's option to limit freedom of choice by requiring beneficiaries to receive their benefits through managed care entities.
( 4 ) This part, for MCOs, PCCMs, and PCCM entities.
( 5 ) Part 434 of this chapter, for all contracts.
( 6 ) Section 438.4, for payments under any risk contracts, and § 447.362 of this chapter for payments under any nonrisk contracts.
( d ) *Limitations on enrollment.* The State must provide assurances that, in implementing the State plan managed care option, it will not require the following groups to enroll in an MCO, PCCM or PCCM entity: ( 1 ) Beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicare.
( 2 ) Indians as defined in § 438.14(a), except as permitted under § 438.14(d).
( 3 ) Children under 19 years of age who are: ( i ) Eligible for SSI under Title XVI;
( ii ) Eligible under section 1902(e)(3) of the Act;
( iii ) In foster care or other out-of-home placement;
( iv ) Receiving foster care or adoption assistance; or
( v ) Receiving services through a family-centered, community-based, coordinated care system that receives grant funds under section 501(a)(1)(D) of Title V, and is defined by the State in terms of either program participation or special health care needs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8500

JOHN HERMAN PLATH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID BEASLEY, Governor; MICHAEL B. MOORE,

Director, Department of Corrections; SERGEANT

FOSTER; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden; SERGEANT

JOHNSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-2985-6-3AK)

Submitted: June 20, 1995 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Herman Plath, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988)

complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance

with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,

454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when

Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. We affirmed that

order. Plath v. Beasley, No. 95-7902 (4th Cir. May 30, 1996) (unpublished). Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's

denial of reconsideration, we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and affirm. 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
§ 456.212 Records and reports. The UR plan must describe— ( a ) The types of records that are kept by the committee; and
( b ) The type and frequency of committee reports and arrangements for their distribution to appropriate individuals.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

                                          January 26, 1999
VIA TELECOPIER


Elisabeth Ducottet
Thuasne, S.A.
65, Avenue Charles de Gaulle
92200 Neuilly-Sur-Seine
Paris, France

Mr. James M. Sack
Thaler Associates, Inc.
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC   20004

            RE:   DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
                  GRAHAM-FIELD AND THUASNE

Dear Elisabeth and James,

            This letter hereby confirms that Graham-Field has agreed to convert
the current exclusive distribution agreement to a non-exclusive distribution
agreement effective immediately, until each of the parties can create a viable
structure for the future. Accordingly, if you are in agreement with converting
the current exclusive distribution agreement to a non-exclusive arrangement,
please indicate so by signing below.

            If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (516)
439-5614.

                                          Very truly yours,



                                          Richard S. Kolodny
                                          Executive Vice President,
                                          General Counsel

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

THUASNE

By: /s/ Elisabeth Ducottet
   _____________________________
Name:
Title

Copy:       Mr. Paul Bellamy
            President and Chief Operating Officer
<PAGE>   2
            Graham-Field Health Products, Inc.
            81Spence Street
            Bay Shore, New York   11706
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LEEANNA G. MCGINN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent

______________________

2018-1414

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-16-0879-W-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

AARON H. SZOT, Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, PC, 

Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented 

by GEORGE CHUZI. 

 ISAAC B. ROSENBERG, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and 

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 September 6, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

#### § 431.202 State plan requirements.

A State plan must provide that the requirements of §§ 431.205 through 431.246 of this subpart are met.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCold-air investigation of first stage of 4-1/2-stage, fan drive turbine with average stage-loading factor of 4.66The design procedure and the development of the blading geometry for the 4 and 1/2 stage turbine are discussed. Results obtained with the first stage, operated as a single stage turbine, are presented. A free vortex design meets the design requirements without incurring problems such as excessive turning, negative reaction, or high Mach number. Cold air tests of the single stage turbine showed that the turbine developed design work (stage loading factor of 5.26) at an efficiency of 0.86, which was the efficiency predicted by a reference method. The mass flow at this condition was 0.88, which occurred at design speed and a pressure ratio of 1.407, corresponding to a stage loading factor of 4.35. The efficiency at this condition was 0.003 higher than that predicted by the reference method.Document ID19810007535Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsWhitney, W. J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Moffitt, T. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Behning, F. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1981Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1780E-461Accession Number81N16050Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-32Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810007535.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
§ 441.154 Active treatment. Inpatient psychiatric services must involve “active treatment”, which means implementation of a professionally developed and supervised individual plan of care, described in § 441.155 that is— ( a ) Developed and implemented no later than 14 days after admission; and
( b ) Designed to achieve the beneficiary's discharge from inpatient status at the earliest possible time.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                        UNITED COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORP.

                            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 United Community Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we
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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Douglas M. McKay                              /s/ Patrick A. Kelly
-----------------------                           -----------------------
Douglas M. McKay                                  Patrick A. Kelly
Chief Executive Officer                           Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2006                                    March 15, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                                                        EX. 32-1