alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Universal American Financial Corp.(the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), RichardA. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Robert A. Waegelein,Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date: March 16, 2006 |   | /s/ RICHARD A.  BARASCH |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | Richard A. Barasch      |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: March 16, 2006 |   | /s/ ROBERT A. WAEGELEIN |
|                      |   | Robert A. Waegelein     |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

*This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theRegistrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.*

----
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the Occasion of the Panchen Lama’s 33rd Birthday

# 									On the Occasion of the Panchen Lama’s 33rd Birthday							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

April 25, 2022

Today marks the 33rd birthday of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama, who remains missing since PRC authorities abducted him as a six-year-old child on May 17, 1995.  The PRC continues to deny members of the Tibetan community access to the Dalai Lama-designated Panchen Lama, the second most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism, and instead continues to promote a state-selected proxy.

We urge PRC authorities to account for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima’s whereabouts and well-being immediately and to allow him to fully exercise his human rights and fundamental freedoms, in line with the PRC’s international commitments.  The United States supports Tibetans’ religious freedom and their unique religious, cultural, and linguistic identity, including Tibetans’ right to select, educate, and venerate their own leaders, like the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, according to their own beliefs and without government interference.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsChinaOffice of International Religious FreedomOffice of the SpokespersonReligious FreedomTibetOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues

Back to Top
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46529

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY SAMUEL SUPP,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: June 24, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of 

confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under the age of 

sixteen, affirmed.

Charles C. Crafts; Crafts Law Office, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Samuel Supp pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under the age of 

sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with fifteen 

years determinate. Supp appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Supp’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
HomeEnergy

# Energy

85 items

        -    		Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI)	   
        -    		Key Topics – Bureau of Energy Resources	   
        -    		CAATSA/CRIEEA Section 232 Public Guidance	  October 31, 2017 
        -    		CAATSA/CRIEEA Section 225 Public Guidance	  October 31, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		Evaluation of the United States-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative (US-ACEF)	   

previous page1…789

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11605 and <greek-i>11606]


New Hampshire Disaster Number NH-00010

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New 
Hampshire ( FEMA-1812-DR) , dated 01/02/2009.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 12/11/2008 through 12/23/2008.
    Effective Date: 01/23/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/03/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/02/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of NEW 
HAMPSHIRE, dated 01/02/2009, is hereby amended to establish the 
incident period for this disaster as beginning 12/11/2008 and 
continuing through 12/23/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-2246 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Program To Create Pathways to Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy Included in Biden-Harris Administration’s Bold Plans To Address the Climate Crisis

# 									Program To Create Pathways to Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy Included in Biden-Harris Administration’s Bold Plans To Address the Climate Crisis							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 27, 2021

Consistent with the Administration’s commitment to addressing the climate crisis, the U.S. Department of State is launching the *Foundational Infrastructure for Responsible Use of Small Modular Reactor Technology* (FIRST) program.  Building on more than 60 years of U.S. innovation and expertise in nuclear energy, FIRST provides capacity-building support to partner countries as they develop their nuclear energy programs to support clean energy goals under the highest international standards for nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation.  As an initial investment, the U.S. Department of State has committed $5.3 million to support FIRST projects.  In the Leader’s Summit on Climate, the Biden-Harris administration highlighted the FIRST program as one of the United States’ key efforts to promote innovation in bringing clean technologies to scale and build unprecedented global cooperation to confront the climate crisis.

FIRST is a capacity-building program designed to deepen strategic ties, support energy innovation, and advance technical collaboration with partner nations on secure and safe nuclear energy infrastructure.  Such cooperation includes supporting the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs), in a manner consistent with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Milestones Approach for implementing a responsible nuclear power program.  SMRs offer significant benefits, including lower costs, scalability, flexibility, and the ability to partner with other clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power.  In addition to reliable electricity generation, SMRs can be used to desalinate water to support rising clean water needs, replace coal to power energy-intensive industrial processes, and produce hydrogen to help decarbonize transportation and other sectors.  FIRST strengthens U.S. relationships with international partners, including through government, industry, national laboratory, and academic institution engagements.

Through efforts like FIRST, the United States is leading the way with a range of bold new commitments to address the climate crisis, spur innovation, conserve our environment, build resilience, and drive growth for communities in a safe and secure manner. The U.S. Department of State is proud that FIRST is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to achieve these goals.

Tags

Arms Control and NonproliferationBureau of International Security and NonproliferationBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsClimate and EnvironmentClimate ChangeEnergyNuclear EnergyOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard FRANCIS.

No. 63579.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1979.

William J. O’Hara, III, Director; Peter G. Warner, Student Practitioner, Loyola Law School Clinic, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Maurine Carroll, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Bernard Francis was charged by bill of information with distribution of heroin in violation of La.R.S. 40:966(A)(1). On October 9, 1974, after trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence to this Court relying on several assignments of error. This *885Court affirmed his conviction, *State v. Francis,*345 So.2d 1120 (La.1977), but also noted that despite the establishment of an adequate chain of custody over the evidence (24 tin-foil packets) by the state, a substantial discrepancy existed between the weight of that evidence as measured in New Orleans by the arresting officer, and as measured in Miami, Florida by a chemical analyst. The Court, therefore, remanded the case to the district court for a redetermination of the connexity of the evidence to this prosecution, with the right of appeal reserved to defendant in the event of an adverse ruling. *State*v. *Francis,*345 So.2d at 1126.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the remand order on August 22, 1978. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court concluded that it had not erred in admitting the evidence at trial. Defendant now appeals from that ruling.

We have reviewed the evidence adduced at the hearing below and have determined that there was no error in the trial court’s ruling. Together with the chain of evidence that we found established in *State v. Francis, supra,*testimony at the hearing provides a satisfactory explanation for the weight discrepancy, and a satisfactory basis for the trial court’s conclusion that more probably than not the evidence was connected with the case and properly before the jury. *State*v. *Drew,*360 So.2d 500 (La.1978).

Accordingly defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CALOGERO, J., dissents.
#### Cornelius Hoppock *against*Elijah Wilson, late constable.

ON CERTIORARI.

Assumpsit notin writing *(a)*

(a)

*Dilts vs. Parke, post 219. Nixon vs. Vanhise, 2 South. 491. Johnson vs. Buck, 6 Vr. 338.*

OPINION of the Court.

Kirkpatrick C. J.

This'is a case of rather a singular comP^ex^on- The Pontiff) in his state of demand, charges the defendant *for the right of a certain bay horse sold as the property of Benjamin*Skillman, 50 *dollars.*He then gives him credit for 32 dollars, leaving a balance of 18 dollars, to which he adds 5 dollars, 10 1-2 cents, for interest; making in the whole, a balance due to him of 23 dollars, 10 1-2 cents, which, he says, will appear by a certain condition of sale, hearing date *December*28, 1812.

*169These conditions of sale, which are referred to, are sent up with the state of demand; and at the bottom of the paper upon which they are written, we find this entry.

*John K. SIdllman*to the right of the said bay horse, $50

The above bid charged to *Cornelius Iloppock,*50

Then the charge against *Skillman*appears to be obliterated by a dash of the pen, and the entry against *Iloppock*is left standing; and the above credit of 32 dollars, deducted from it.

*From these two papers, taken together, it appears that the copy of the account filed, is not a copy of the original entry, from which it professes to be taken. It also appears, that the original entry against the defendant, is for the debt of another, and not for his own debt; that is to say, for the debt of *Skillman,*who made the bid. And yet it is manifest from the transcript, that there was no undertaking in writing, by the defendant, to pay the same. This is manifest, because the justice has entered the testimony of the witnesses, and there is no such proof.

The admission of the mere certificate of the town clerk, to shew that the plaintiff was a constable, was unlawful; but still, the fact itself was immaterial, and therefore no stress is laid upon that, *(a)***But because the account filed was not a copy of the original entry, as by law it ought to have been, and because the defendant was charged for the debt of another, without an undertaking in writing, and especially for the last of these reasons

Let the judgment be reversed.

(a)

*Hampton vs. Swisher, ante 66.*
HomeCases Filed Against the United Mexican States...Legacy Vulcan v. United Mexican States

# 									Legacy Vulcan v. United Mexican States							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

Claimant brought claims under the NAFTA alleging that Mexico breached its obligations to provide fair and equitable treatment (Article 1105) and most-favored-nation treatment (Article 1103) in connection with measures taken in relation to Claimant’s quarrying operation in the state of Quintana Roo.

06/07/2021 U.S. Article 1128 Submission [260 KB] (Accessible version [473 KB])

07/21/2023 Second U.S. Article 1128 Submission [277 KB](Accessible version [171 KB])

Find further information and documents concerning this claim

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsMexico

Back to Top
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Textron Financial CorporationDate: February 24, 2006
    /s/ Thomas J. CullenThomas J. CullenExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
§ 498.45 Disqualification of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) An ALJ may not conduct a hearing in a case in which he or she is prejudiced or partial to the affected party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision.
( b ) A party that objects to the ALJ designated to conduct the hearing must give notice of its objections at the earliest opportunity.
( c ) The ALJ will consider the objections and decide whether to withdraw or proceed with the hearing. ( 1 ) If the ALJ withdraws, another will be designated to conduct the hearing.
( 2 ) If the ALJ does not withdraw, the objecting party may, after the hearing, present its objections to the Departmental Appeals Board as reasons for changing, modifying, or reversing the ALJ's decision or providing a new hearing before another ALJ.
#### § 435.130 Individuals receiving mandatory State supplements.

The agency must provide Medicaid to individuals receiving mandatory State supplements.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.272 Release of MA bid pricing data. ( a ) *Terminology.* For purposes of this section, the term “MA bid pricing data” means the following information that MA organizations must submit for each MA plan bid for the annual bid submission: ( 1 ) The pricing-related information described at § 422.254(a)(1); and
( 2 ) The information required for MSA plans, described at § 422.254(e).
( b ) *Release of MA bid pricing data.* Subject to paragraph (c) of this section and to the annual timing identified in paragraph (d) of this section, CMS will release to the public MA bid pricing data for MA plan bids accepted or approved by CMS for a contract year under § 422.256. The annual release will contain MA bid pricing data from the final list of MA plan bids accepted or approved by CMS for a contract year that is at least 5 years prior to the upcoming calendar year.
( c ) *Exclusions from release of MA bid pricing data.* For the purpose of this section, the following information is excluded from the data released under paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) For an MA plan bid that includes Part D benefits, the information described at § 422.254(b)(1)(ii), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(7).
( 2 ) Additional information that CMS requires to verify the actuarial bases of the bids for MA plans for the annual bid submission, as follows: ( i ) Narrative information on base period factors, manual rates, cost-sharing methodology, optional supplement benefits, and other required narratives.
( ii ) Supporting documentation.
( 3 ) Any information that could be used to identify Medicare beneficiaries or other individuals.
( 4 ) Bid review correspondence and reports.
( d ) *Timing of data release.* CMS will release MA bid pricing data as provided in paragraph (b) of this section on an annual basis after the first Monday in October.
[81 FR 80556, Nov. 15, 2016]
§ 475.105 Prohibition against contracting with health care facilities, affiliates, and payor organizations. ( a ) *Basic rule.* Except as permitted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the following are not eligible for QIO contracts: ( 1 ) A health care facility in the QIO area.
( 2 ) A health care facility affiliate; that is, an organization in which more than 20 percent of the members of the governing body are also either a governing body member, officer, partner, five percent or more owner, or managing employee in a health care facility in the QIO area.
( 3 ) A payor organization, unless the Secretary determines that— ( i ) There is no other entity available for an area with which the Secretary can enter into a contract under this part; or
( ii ) A payor organization is a more qualified entity to perform one or more of the functions of a QIO described in § 475.101(b), meets all other requirements and standards of this part, and demonstrates to the satisfaction of CMS that, in performing QIO activities, the payor organization will act with complete objectivity and independence from its payor program.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Subcontracting.* A QIO must not subcontract with a health care facility to perform any case review activities except for the review of the quality of care.
Home1996 Treaties and Agreements...North Macedonia (96-405) – Investment Incentive Agreement

# 									North Macedonia (96-405) – Investment Incentive Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

April 5, 1996

Finance: Investment Incentive

Signed at Skopje April 5, 1996; entered into force April 5, 1996.

With Exchange of Notes.
Download attachment						 [807 KB]

Tags

FinanceNorth MacedoniaTreaties

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6050

CURTIS LAKES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. R. WITKOWSKI; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney

General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2971-3-OBC)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lakes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motions for rehearing, properly construed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), and for oral argument. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. See

United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss on

the reasoning of the district court. Lakes v. Witkowski, No. CA-94-

2971-3-OBC (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 498.79 Timeframes for deciding an enrollment appeal before an ALJ.

When a request for an ALJ hearing is filed after CMS or a FFS contractor has denied an enrollment application, the ALJ must issue a decision, dismissal order or remand to CMS, as appropriate, no later than the end of the 180-day period beginning from the date the appeal was filed with an ALJ.

[73 FR 36463, June 27, 2008]