alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 437.1 Basis, scope, purpose, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart is based on sections 1139A, 1139B, 1902(a)(6), 1945(c)(4)(B), 1945(g), and 1945A(g) of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth specifications for issuance and updates to the Core Set of Children's Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid and CHIP (Child Core Set), the Core Set of Adult Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid (Adult Core Set), and the 1945 and 1945A Core Sets of Health Home Quality Measures for Medicaid (Health Home Core Sets) by the Secretary. It also sets forth requirements related to annual reporting by States of measures in all of the Core Sets, and requirements related to provider reporting to States on the Health Home Core Sets.
( c ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) The purpose of the Medicaid and CHIP Child Core Set and the Medicaid Adult Core Set is to measure the overall national quality of care for beneficiaries, monitor performance at the State-level, and improve the quality of health care.
( 2 ) The purpose of the Health Home Core Sets is to measure the overall program quality of health home services for Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in a health home program under section 1945 or 1945A of the Act, monitor the impact of these two optional State plan benefits, monitor performance of these two benefits at the program level, and improve the quality of health care.
( d ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this subpart apply as follows: ( 1 ) For the Child and Adult Core Sets, State includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
( 2 ) For the Health Home Core Sets, State includes any State (as defined under section 1101 of the Act for purposes of Title XIX of the Act) with an approved Medicaid Health Home State Plan Amendment under section 1945 or 1945A of the Act.
( e ) *Applicability dates.* States must comply with the requirements of this subpart by no later than State reporting on the 2024 Core Sets, which must be submitted and certified by December 31, 2024.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-2077

LT Case No. 2022-CF-001037-A 

_____________________________ 

MICHAEL JAMES BROWN, 

Petitioner,

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent.

_____________________________ 

Petition for Belated Appeal.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Jeffrey Stone, Assistant Regional Counsel, of Office of Regional 

Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for 

Petitioner. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock 

McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Respondent. 

August 25, 2023 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this 

opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the 

notice of appeal from the October 26, 2022 judgment and sentence 
2 

rendered in Case No. 2022-CF-001037-A, in the Circuit Court in 

and for Marion County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED. 

MAKAR, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Leading	Edge	Technologies
618	South	Main	St. Winnebago,	Mn	56098 info@dronesforag.com (507)	893

- 4545

November	12 ,	2015

U. S.	Department	of	Transportation Docket	Management	System 1200	New	Jersey	Ave	S.E. Washington,	D.C.	20590

Re: Docket FAA

- 2015

- 1053 ; Second	Amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11797 Request	by	Leading	Edge	Technologies	for	inclusion	of	additional	aircraft

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:

In	 this	 petition	 for amendment	 to	Exemption	No.	 11797

, Leading	Edge	Technologies seeks	 to operate	two	additional	types	o f	UASs	for	the	purposes of	aerial	data	collection,	flight	operations training,	and	engineering	development .	These	UASs	are: (1)	the SenseFly	eXo m and	(2)	the Zero

UAV Terra8 .	The	airworthiness	of	the SenseFly	eXom was	previously	determined	b y	the	FAA	in

Ex emption	No.	11263A ( SenseFly	Ltd. ) .	The	Zero	UAV	Terra8	will	be	operated	with	the	Zero	Tech Gemini	flight	controller. Attached	are	the	Sensefly	eXom	User	Manual	and	the	Zero	Tech	Gemini

F light	Controller	Manual.

Leading	 Edge	 Technologies will	 comply	 with	 all	 of	 the	 conditions	 and	 limita tions	 imposed	 in Exemption	11797, except	in	reference	to	condition/limitation	1,	which	will	include	the	vehicles
above. The	list	of	"operating	documents"	will	also	need	 to	be	 revised to	include	 the	SenseFly eXom	User	Manual	and	the	Zero	Tech	Gemini	Flight	Control	Manual. Other	than	these	revisions, there	will	be	no	change	in	the	conditions	and	reasons	relative	to	public	safety	that	were	the	basis
for	th e	initial	grant	of	exemption.

Because	the	requested	ame ndment	would	not	set	any	precedent	or	otherwise	raise	any	novel issue,	and	because Leading	Edge	Technologies seeks	 to	begin	 these	operations	without	delay, Leading	Edge	Technologies respectfully	requests	the	FAA	to	determine	that	good	cause	exists	to dispe nse	with	publication	of	the	summary	of	this	petition	in	the	Federal	Register	and	grant	the requested	amendment	expeditiously	by	summary	means.

Respectfully	submitted,

Orlando	Saez

CEO

– Leading	Edge	Technologies
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3560

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 290

ald H. Brown Federal Building’’.Broadway in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ron-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3560

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown

Federal Building’’.

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

•HR 3560 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in

3 New York, New York, shall be known and designated as

4 the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   524
<PP&E>                                           1,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           618
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,891
<SALES>                                            312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   312
<CGS>                                               87
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       87
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,949)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,993)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-K of Universal American Corp. (the "Registrant") for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard A. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Robert A.
Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of his knowledge:



Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ RICHARD A. BARASCH Richard A. Barasch Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ ROBERT A. WAEGELEIN Robert A. Waegelein Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing

---



QuickLinks
§ 488.1000 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Regulatory basis for home infusion therapy services.* The home infusion therapy health and safety regulations are codified at part 486, subpart I, of this chapter.
( b ) *Statutory basis for the accreditation of home infusion therapy suppliers.* ( 1 ) Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act require that the Secretary prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the Medicare program.
( 2 ) Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act require the Secretary to designate and approve independent organizations for the purposes of accrediting qualified home infusion therapy suppliers.
( c ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the following: ( 1 ) Application and reapplication procedures for national accrediting organizations seeking approval or re-approval of authority to accredit qualified home infusion therapy suppliers.
( 2 ) Ongoing CMS oversight processes for approved accrediting organizations that accredit qualified home infusion therapy suppliers.
( 3 ) Appeal procedures for accrediting organizations that accredit qualified home infusion therapy suppliers.
ViroPharma Board Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.19 
 ViroPharma Board Compensation Policy 
 Directors that are non-executive officers of ViroPharma, and directors that
are not affiliated with a person or entity that has been granted a contractual right to appoint a director to the Board of Directors (“Eligible Directors”), shall receive a cash retainer of $25,000 annually. The Chairman of the Board, if
an independent director as set forth in requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market, shall receive an additional annual retainer of $30,000. A lead independent director shall receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000. The Audit Committee Chairman
shall receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000. The Compensation Committee Chairman and Nominating and Governance Committee Chairman shall receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Eligible Directors shall receive $2,500 for each board
meeting attended, provided that no payments shall be made for teleconferences lasting less than one (1) hour, and $1,000 for each committee meeting, plus travel expenses, for each board and committee meeting that they attend. 
 Eligible Directors shall receive an option grant of 25,000 shares, vesting in equal increments over 3 years, upon his or her initial election to the Board. These
directors also shall receive option grants once each year to purchase 15,000 shares of our common stock, vesting in full after one year from the date of grant. In a director’s initial year of service, he or she will be entitled to receive
(1) the 25,000 share initial election grant, and (2) a pro-rata portion of the 15,000 share annual grant.
3rd Amendment to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.52 
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 ALLIANCE COAL, LLC 
 SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Amended and Restated Alliance Coal, LLC Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) provides that it may be amended by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Alliance Resource Management GP, LLC (the “Compensation Committee”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has approved amending the Plan as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 6.1 is amended to read as follows: 

 6.1 Time
of Payment. Payment to a Participant (or his beneficiary) of the notional amount credited to his Account shall be made as soon as practicable following his termination of employment (for any reason) and, in no event, more than thirty (30) days
following the date of such termination. For purposes of this Plan, “termination of employment” means a “separation from service” for purposes of Section 409A of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder and
notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, in no event shall a payment to a Participant be made prior to his separation from service. 
  

	 	2.	Section 6.2 is amended to read as follows: 

 6.2 Form
of Payment. Payment of Accounts to Participants shall be in cash (subject to applicable withholding) in a lump sum. 
  

	 	3.	Section 6.3, “Deferral of Payment”, is deleted in its entirety. 

  

	 	4.	Section 6.4 is amended by adding thereto the following: 

 Payment due under this Section 6.4 shall be made as soon as practicable following the
Participant’s death and in no event later than (a) the end of the calendar year of the Participant’s death or (b) 2 1/2 months following the date of the Participant’s death, whichever is later. 







 EXECUTED and EFFECTIVE this October 28, 2008. 
  

			
	ALLIANCE COAL, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ R. Eberley Davis

	Name:	 	R. Eberley Davis
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President,
		 	General Counsel and Secretary


  

 -2-
§ 488.1250 Directed plan of correction. ( a ) *Application.* CMS may impose a directed plan of correction when a hospice program— ( 1 ) Has one or more condition-level deficiencies that warrant directing the hospice program to take specific actions; or
( 2 ) Fails to submit an acceptable plan of correction.
( b ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) Before imposing the remedy in paragraph (a) of this section, CMS notifies the hospice program in accordance with § 488.1210(e).
( 2 ) CMS or the temporary manager (with CMS approval) may direct the hospice program to take corrective action to achieve specific outcomes within specific timeframes.
( c ) *Duration and effect of remedy.* If the hospice program fails to achieve compliance with the conditions of participation within the timeframes specified in the directed plan of correction, which may not to exceed 6 months, CMS does one of the following: ( 1 ) May impose one or more other remedies set forth in § 488.1220.
( 2 ) Terminates the provider agreement.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael E. Lehman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



|                      |  |     |  |                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------
|Date: August 28, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/  MICHAEL E. LEHMAN          
|                      |  |     |  | Name: Michael E. Lehman         
|                      |  |     |  | Title:   Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Youth Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay Rifkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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. |
|  |    |                                                                                                                                                      |

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.

|                 |                                    |  |
|-----------------|------------------------------------|--|
|                 |                                    |  |
| August 14, 2009 | /s/ Jay Rifkin                     |  |
|                 | Jay Rifkin Chief Executive Officer |  |
- Program Home
- Key Topics

HomeForeign Missions Travel Controls Program...Key Topics – Foreign Missions Travel Controls Program

# 									Key Topics – Foreign Missions Travel Controls Program							

        - Visits by Chinese Government Officials to State and Local Governments in the United States
        - Visits by Chinese Government Officials to Research Facilities in the United States
        - Visits by Chinese Government Officials to Educational Institutions in the United States

Back to Top
#### David J. Benoliel, Appellant, *v.*Julius Becker et al., Respondents.

Appeal from orders of the Eighth Municipal Court.

Coudert Brothers, for appellant.

Wahle & Stone, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal by the landlord from, a final order in summary proceedings in favor of Emanuel Abeles, a tenant, and against the landlord, and from an order denying the landlord’s motion to set aside the verdict of a jury and for a new trial. The landlord instituted the proceedings to dispossess the tenant, upon the ground that the term had expired. Issue was duly joined, and the tenant having demanded a jury trial j the same proceeded before one of the justices of the Municipal Court and a jury. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the tenant, whereupon the trial judge, being of the opinion, as he stated, that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, expressed his determination to set it aside. Before the entry of the formal order, however, the attention of the trial judge was called to a decision of this court, wherein it was held that the Municipal Court had no power to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial in summary proceedings and thereupon the judge revoked his decision setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial upon the ground that the said verdict was against the weight of evidence, and he denied the motion to set aside the verdict for the reason that the court had no power to grant the same. In this he was right. The defense to the proceedings was. that the landlord, for a valuable consideration, had agreed to give the tenant an extension of the lease for the term of one year from April 30, 1898. Upon this issue the matter was submitted to the ■ jury, who, as we have seen, brought in a verdict for the tenant. There was a sharp conflict of testimony. A close examination of the record satisfies us that the case was carefully tried, and the rights of both landlord and tenant fully protected. The charge, as a whole, seems to be fair and to set forth correctly the law applicable to the controversy. The errors which the plaintiff claims were committed,'and to which he took exception, were, we think, cured by the statements which were subsequently made by the justice to the jury.

The record before us fails to disclose any error that would warrant this court in interfering with the final order. The learned *759trial judge,' having the witnesses before him and being able to observe their appearances, demeanor and manner of testifying, an advantage we do not possess, seems to have disagreed with the verdict of the jury on the question of fact, which, as we have said, he fairly submitted to them. The evidence, however, produced by the tenant, as disclosed by the record, is sufficient, ii; credited, to support the verdict; and this court, in the absence of some error of law, will not disturb the final order.

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Orders affirmed, with costs.
#### Boyd Yates v. The State.

*No. 1152.*

*Decided March 24th, 1897.*

Judgment—Swearing of Jury.

A judgment which fails to show' that the jury were selected, empaneled and sworn, is not a valid judgment. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 831, Suhdiv. 4.

Appeal from the County Court of Stonewall. Tried below before Hon J. W. Kelley, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for failing to work a public road; penalty, a fine of $1.

No statement necessary.

*Leggett & Cunningham,*for appellant, cited Cannon v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App., 34; Howard v. State, 8 Tex. Crim. App., 613; Berry v. State, 10 Tex. Crim. App., 315; Dresch v. State, 14 Tex. Crim. App., 177.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for failing to work a public road. The judgment fails to show that the jury was selected, empaneled, and sworn. This is assigned as error. We think the point well taken. Article 831, Code Crim. Proc., provides that the judgment must show the selection, empaneling, and swearing of the jury. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and*Remanded.