alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 238 ) ll-K-(I ) -5 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56

AM Sheet 238 of 325P. 2 

# Ik " 

# o II-K-(I)-5 1
A N ANALYSI S O F TH E POTENTIA L FO RCOAL US E I

N TH E INDUSTRIA L SECTOR . EEA , Inc . Marc h15 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-5 1
#### § 455.516 Exceptions from Medicaid RAC programs.

A State may seek to be excepted from some or all Medicaid RAC contracting requirements by submitting to CMS a written justification for the request for CMS review and approval through the State Plan amendment process.
ex10_9b.htm


     

     

    
      
        

      



      AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      


      THIS AMENDMENT is made this 16th day of
December, 2008, by and among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the “Company”), and Robert O. Stephenson (the
“Executive”).

      


      RECITALS:

      


      The Company and the Executive are
parties to an employment agreement effective as of September 1, 2004, as amended
(the “Employment Agreement”).  The Company now desires to amend the
Employment Agreement for compliance with final regulations under Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code.

      


      In consideration of the mutual promises
herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the
Employment Agreement is amended as follows:

      


      1. By adding
after the phrase in the third to last sentence of Section 3(c)(i) “commencing as
of the date of termination of employment” the phrase “, provided that the first
payment shall be made within sixty (60) days following termination of employment
and shall include all payments accrued from the date of termination of
employment to the date of the first payment”.

      


      2. By adding
the following to Section 3(c)(iii):

      


      “The Company shall provide the Release
for the Executive’s execution in sufficient time so that if the Executive timely
executes and returns the Release, the revocation period will expire before the
date the Executive is required to begin to receive payment pursuant to Section
3(c)(i).”

      


      3. By adding
a new Section 9(n) as follows:

      


      “(n)  ‘Termination of
employment’ and similar terms shall refer solely to a ‘separation from
service’ within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.”

      


      Except as specifically amended hereby,
the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this
Amendment.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
caused this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

      


      OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.:

      


      By: /s/ C. Taylor
Pickett

      


      Print Name: C. Taylor
Pickett

      


      Title: Chief Executive
Officer

      


      ROBERT O.
STEPHENSON:

      


      


      /s/ Robert O.
Stephenson
§ 482.104 Condition of participation: Additional requirements for kidney transplant programs. ( a ) *Standard: End stage renal disease (ESRD) services.* Kidney transplant programs must directly furnish transplantation and other medical and surgical specialty services required for the care of ESRD patients. A kidney transplant program must have written policies and procedures for ongoing communications with dialysis patients' local dialysis facilities.
( b ) *Standard: Dialysis services.* Kidney transplant programs must furnish inpatient dialysis services directly or under arrangement.
( c ) *Standard: Participation in network activities.* Kidney transplant programs must cooperate with the ESRD Network designated for their geographic area, in fulfilling the terms of the Network's current statement of work.
[72 FR 15273, Mar. 30, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 51824, Sept. 30, 2019]
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Francis Xavier GEROSA, Jr., and Robert Joseph Snyder, Respondents.

No. 46339.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 24, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 301 So.2d 523.

ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., and ERVIN, Ret. J., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01634**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01634\01634_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01634\01634_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01634\01634_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01634\01634_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01634\01634_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01634\01634_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01634\01634_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01634\01634_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01634\Certification Statement_01634.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 01634\Supporting Documentation\01634_Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01634\Supporting Documentation\ICR LCCoverPage.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### John Henry McARTHUR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1538.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 29, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1974.

*360Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kathleen Gallagher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HAV-ERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of his conviction and sentence to sixty days in the Dade County Stockade for assault.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to discharge him because of a violation of Rule 3.191 CrPr, 33 F.S.A., in that more than one hundred eighty (180) days had elapsed between February 20, 1973, when he was taken into custody, and November 14, 1973, when he was brought to trial. Appellant bases this contention on the fact that his trial was continued at the request of his first attorney, on the ground that said attorney would be on vacation on the trial date. Appellant urges that he neither knew about nor consented to this continuance.

Shortly thereafter, defendant’s second attorney, who also withdrew, filed a motion to dismiss for violation of Rule 3.191, CrPr, 33 F.S.A., stating as grounds, that defendant was ready and willing to proceed and that he was without knowledge of and did not approve, the continuance. This motion was denied and defendant’s third attorney filed a motion to discharge under the same rule, alleging the same grounds, which motion was also denied.

Denial of defendant’s motions to dismiss and to discharge for want of speedy trial was proper. A timely trial, as originally scheduled was continued on motion of the defendant’s (first) attorney, following which trial was had within a reasonable time. The principle is well established that thé right to a speedy trial is waived when the defendant or his attorney requests a continuance. See State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 861; Atkins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 265 So.2d 72; Llano v. State, Fla.App.1972, 271 So.2d 34; Collie v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 382.

We cannot accept the appellant’s argument that because the continuance was obtained without his knowledge, consent or approval, it would not operate as an effective waiver. The acts of an attorney “ . . . will be binding on the client even though done without consulting him and even against his wishes.” State v. Earnest, Fla.App. 1972, 265 So.2d 397, 400. See also Griffith v. Investment Co., Fla. 1926, 92 Fla. 781, 110 So. 271.

For the reasons hereinabove set forth, it is our view that the trial court was correct in not discharging the appellant for failure to bring him to trial within the 180 days.

Affirmed.
Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting a24 month exemption from 14 CFR Part 91.313(a) in orderto perform pilottraining and/orcertification events conducted in a Restricted Category aircraft. The aircraftAero Contractors, Ltd. request to be included in this exemption request are Beechcraft King Air, B200 series aircraft operated by Aero Contractors, Ltd.
Petition for relief: Aero Contractors, Ltd is requesting an exemption from the requirements of14CFR Part 91.313(a). Aero Contractors, Ltd. requests an exemption in orderto perform pilottraining and/orcertification events in restricted category aircraft.
Information in support ofthis exemption request:

1. There are not sufficient numbers ofBeechcraft B200 series aircraft certificated in the Standard/Normal Category which are used in "heavy-weight" operations to supporttraining and/ortype rides. 2. The aircraft identified in the opening statement are "dual certificated" in the normal and restricted categories.
a. The aircraft are operated in accordance with Beechcraft Pilot Operating Handbook Airplane Flight Manual Supplement, p/n 101-590037-47, when conducting operations in restricted category for heavy-weight operations. b. The aircraft are inspected in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft document, PROP 2009- 

### 06-10, (and an aircraft logbook entry made) by aproperly certificated FAA mechanic when the aircraft is transferred between categories to ensure the aircraft meets FAA required airworthiness standards. 3. The Beechcraft King Air B200 series aircraft operated by Aero Contractors, Ltd. have been used for providing training and/orcertification events while operating in restricted category since August of2009. 4. Operations providing training and/orcertification events in restricted category aircraft have not been questioned by FAA personnel priorto the issuance ofFAA Notice N8900.295, dated 5/5/2015. 5. When the aircraft is operated in restricted category there is no reduction in operational functionality ofthe aircraftor its systems. The aircraft also have afully equivalent level ofsafety which is equal to any other Beechcraft King Air B200 series aircraft operated in US airspace. This exemption will notadversely affect safety, the training, and/orthe certification ofFAA certificated pilots. Description ofOperation underthe proposed exemption:
Aero Contractors, Ltd. will operate the aircraft in accordance withthe Federal Aviation Administration regulations and the FAA limitations provided in the restricted category Operating Limitations which are part ofthe restricted category certificate. The lone exception tothiswill be the conduct oftraining and/orcertification eventswhile the aircraft is operating in restricted category.
Thank you foryourconsideration.Respectfully submitted,

Bernie Consol Chief Pilot, Aero Contractors, Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000728376
<NAME> AXIOHM TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           2,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,506)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,886
<PP&E>                                          39,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,735)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,266
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,589
<OTHER-SE>                                    (96,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,657
<SALES>                                        111,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,989
<CGS>                                           77,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,102)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.54)


</TABLE>
#### § 447.325 Other inpatient and outpatient facility services: Upper limits of payment.

The agency may pay the customary charges of the provider but must not pay more than the prevailing charges in the locality for comparable services under comparable circumstances.
#### CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY, INC. et al., Appellants, v. Robert W. SZAJBLER, Appellee.

No. SS-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 13, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1980.

Walter E. Beisler, West Palm Beach, and Anthony J. Beisler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Richard W. Groner, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*1215MASON, ERNEST E., (Ret.), Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from an order dated October 29, 1979, by Deputy Commissioner David A. Danielson. The deputy ruled that the claimant/appellee, Robert W. Szajbler, suffered an industrial accident on May 21, 1979, in which he became temporarily totally disabled due to a “catastrophic loss” as defined by Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). The deputy awarded compensation at the rate of eighty percent (80%) of the claimant’s weekly wage until he completed training or until November 21, 1979, whichever occurs first.

From this order the appellant contended that the claimant could have only suffered from a catastrophic total loss of use of either his leg or his foot based on the evidence in the record. The appellant claims that the evidence indicates that the claimant did not suffer a “total loss of use” of either his leg or foot as defined by Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). The appellant further contends that even if the claimant did suffer such a loss, the deputy’s findings are deficient, because the deputy did not specify to what part of the body the claimant incurred a catastrophic loss.

This Court recently clarified the meaning of the term “total loss of use” in Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). *See Van Eyk v. R. N. Hicks Construction Co.,*377 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The record set out competent substantial evidence to demonstrate a total loss of use of the foot1 as set forth in the statute and clarified by *Van Eyk, supra.*Therefore, we affirm as to the first point, but we agree with the appellant as to the second point. The deputy has failed to adequately specify to what part of the body the claimant has suffered a total loss of use.

We suspect that the deputy intended to find a total loss of use to the foot. However, the deputy’s order did not state this. Therefore, we must remand the order for clarification on this issue by the deputy commissioner.

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

1

. Whether or not there is competent substantial evidence to sustain a finding of a total loss of use to the leg or any other part of the body, is a question we do not reach in this opinion.
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
**Title: National Fuel Cell Bus Program : accelerated  testing evaluation report #2.
Link to: Report  |   Link to: Appendix
SuDocs No. E  1.99:NREL/TP-560-48106
Item  Number: 0430-P-03 (online)
System Number: 000716402
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
 ** |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Statements
of Operations, Balance Sheets, Statement of Cash Flows and Statement of
Sharholders' Equity, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,112,091
<SECURITIES>                                 8,562,730
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,724,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (178,565)
<INVENTORY>                                    451,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,270,741
<PP&E>                                      17,739,664
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,431,207)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,312,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,114,469
<BONDS>                                      4,055,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,867,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,312,350
<SALES>                                      1,397,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,573,112
<CGS>                                        1,879,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,718,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,136,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,110,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,110,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                               9,109,493
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,039,816)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,959,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Earl GAGE v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 63847.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1979.

In re Robert Earl Gage applying for writs of mandamus, certiorari and review. Parish of Bossier.

Writ denied.
# C_2006060EN.01004702.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/47

---

Action brought on 11 January 2006 — PORTELA & Ca, S.A. v OHIM

a

(Case T-10/06)

(2006/C 60/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: PORTELA & Ca, S.A. (S. Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by João M. Pimenta, lawyer)

Applicant:

a

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 in Case R-897/2004-1 granting registration of Community trade mark No 1 400 183 for the following products:






  — | Class 5 — pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, preparations for destroying vermin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 in Case R-897/2004-1 granting registration of Community trade mark No 1 400 183 for the following products:

—

Class 5 — pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, preparations for destroying vermin;

| — | Class 42 — medical services, services related to pharmaceutical laboratories; research in the field of medicine and laboratories. |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 42 — medical services, services related to pharmaceutical laboratories; research in the field of medicine and laboratories.

| — | Order OHIM to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: PORTELA & Ca, S.A.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

a

Community trade mark concerned: Bial (application No 1400183)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark BIAL

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that OHIM infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by interpreting it incorrectly and that the contested decision is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements (the mark was not properly presented in the opposition, the applicant was not provided, within the period prescribed by law, with the relevant elements of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based and the decision on costs was incorrect).

Pleas in law:

---