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


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  quarterly   report  of   Communication   Intelligence
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Francis V. Dane,  Principal  Financial  Officer,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

Dated August 14, 2003

By: /s/Francis V. Dane
          Principal Financial Officer





                                      -25-
#### Ralph S. Kantrowitz *v.*Russell L. Patterson et al., Liquor Control Commission.

Maltbie, C. J., Bbown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued November 7

decided December 5, 1945.

*427
      *Frank J. DiSesa,*assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was *William L. Hadden,*attorney general, for the appellants (defendants).

*Herbert L. Cohen,*with whom, on the brief, was *Ralph S. Kantrowitz,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff applied to the defendant liquor control commission for a wholesale liquor dealer’s license; a hearing and a rehearing were held, and the petition was denied on the ground that the owners, partners, backers or permittees of certain package store permits would have an interest in the proposed wholesale permit. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which conducted a de novo hearing and reached a contrary conclusion. The defendant has appealed.

The gist of the court’s finding is that the plaintiff had been associated with his father and three brothers in various retail liquor stores which had been financed by a family fund established from their earnings, but that upon his discharge from the army in 1943 he married, withdrew the amount he had contributed to the family fund and terminated his connection with it. The sum withdrawn was greatly in excess of the amount needed to finance the establishment of a wholesale liquor business. The court concluded that no other member of the family would have any finan*428cial interest in the proposed wholesale liquor business and that the plaintiff would have no financial interest in the retail stores conducted by other members of the family. The defendant concedes that it cannot prevail unless material corrections are made in the finding. The changes which are warranted by the evidence would not materially affect the conclusions which the court reached.

The most substantial claim made by the defendant is that the plaintiff withdrew from the family fund $5000 belonging to a brother who, although in service overseas, was half owner of a package store, and that the inference must be drawn that the plaintiff intended to use it in establishing and operating the wholesale business, in violation of General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1939, § 968e. The court found, in effect, that the transaction was a gift; that, nevertheless, the plaintiff, before the rehearing held by the defendant, returned the money in order to allay any suspicion or claim that the brother had any financial interest in the proposed wholesale business. As the evidence supports this finding, there is no question of law involved.

The function of the trial court in appeals of this nature is stated in *Cripps*v. *Liquor Control Commission,*130 Conn. 693, 698, 37 Atl. (2d) 227. The court concluded that the defendant’s refusal to grant the application was grounded on suspicion and surmises which were not established by the evidence produced before the court, and that the commission’s action was arbitrary and constituted an abuse of its discretion. For the reasons we have given, we cannot disturb this conclusion.

There is no error.
§ 488.1105 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Abbreviated standard survey* means a focused survey other than a standard survey that gathers information on hospice program's compliance with specific standards or conditions of participation. An abbreviated standard survey may be based on complaints received or other indicators of specific concern.
*Complaint survey* means a survey that is conducted to investigate substantial allegations of noncompliance as defined in § 488.1.
*Condition-level deficiency* means noncompliance as described in § 488.24.
*Deficiency* is a violation of the Act and regulations contained in part 418, subparts C and D, of this chapter, is determined as part of a survey, and can be either standard or condition-level.
*Hospice Special Focus Program (SFP)* means a program conducted by CMS to identify hospices as poor performers, based on defined quality indicators, in which CMS selects hospices for increased oversight to ensure that they meet Medicare requirements. Selected hospices either successfully complete the SFP program or are terminated from the Medicare program.
*IDR* stands for informal dispute resolution.
*Noncompliance* means any deficiency found at the condition-level or standard-level.
*SFP status* means the status of a hospice provider in the SFP with respect to the provider's progress in the SFP, which is indicated by one of the following status levels: ( 1 ) Level 1—in progress.
( 2 ) Level 2—completed successfully.
( 3 ) Level 3—terminated from the Medicare program.
*SFP survey* means a standard survey as defined in this section and is performed after a hospice is selected for the SFP and is conducted every 6 months, up to 3 occurrences.
*Standard-level deficiency* means noncompliance with one or more of the standards that make up each condition of participation for hospice programs.
*Standard survey* means a survey conducted in which the surveyor reviews the hospice program's compliance with a select number of standards or conditions of participation or both to determine the quality of care and services furnished by a hospice program.
*Substantial compliance* means compliance with all condition-level requirements, as determined by CMS or the State.
[86 FR 62425, Nov. 9, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 77879, Nov. 13, 2023]
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Morocco (19-515) – Education Agreement

# 									Morocco (19-515) – Education Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

May 15, 2019

Education

Signed at Rabat February 22, 2013; entered in force May 15, 2019.
Download Agreement						 [2 MB]

Tags

EducationMoroccoTreaties

Back to Top
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS



I, Brian T. Beckwith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Peoples Educational
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2004


/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
---------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
President and Chief Executive Officer
----

| Name of Subsidiary        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
| The San Francisco Company | Delaware                                      |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      | First Bank                                    | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | First Land Trustee Corp. | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | First Bank Business Capital, Inc. | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | Missouri Valley Partners, Inc. | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | WIUS, Inc. (1) | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          |   | WIUS of California, Inc. (2) | California |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | Small Business Loan Source LLC | Nevada |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | FB Holdings, LLC (3) | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | ILSIS, Inc. | Missouri |
|                      |                                          |   |   |   |
|                      |                                          | FBIN, Inc. | Nevada |

| (1) | Formerly Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Formerly UPAC of California, Inc. |
|-----|-----------------------------------|

| (3) | First Bank owned 53.23% of FB Holdings, LLC at December 31, 2009. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, 123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . J ANOSEK ET AL ., A PPELLANTS , v. C UYAHOGA S UPPORT E NFORCEMENT A GENCY , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuya hoga Support Enfo rcement Agency, 123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692.] Prohibition — Agency action that is not judi cial or quasi-judicial in nature is not subject to prohibition — Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law —
Writ denied

. (No. 2009-0705

─ Submitted September 2, 2009

─ Decided September 16, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 92387,
2009-Ohio-1098.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the c ourt of appeals denying a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, from ordering the payment of spousal support and the withholding of money allegedly not owed by appellants, James Janosek and Welded Ring Products Company. Because no statute or other pertinent law required the agency to conduct a hearing resembling a judicial trial when it issued its notice to withhold income for spousal support, the agency did not exercise th e judicial or quasi -judicial authority required for appellants to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. See State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 120 Ohio St.3d 92, 2008-Ohio-5553, 896 N.E.2d 706, ¶ 8. The authorities cited by appellants refer only to discretionary author ity to hold hearings. See, e.g., R.C. 5101.37. Insofar as appellants claim that the agency is acting contrary to a trial court order, they have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by wayS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 of a motion for contempt in the trial court case. See State ex rel. Weaver v. Ohio
Adult Parole Auth. , 116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191, ¶ 6. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Larry W. Zukerman, and S. Michael Lear, for appellants. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Frederick W. Whatley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

__________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UNITED FOODS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY
31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,351
<PP&E>                                         144,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,952
<BONDS>                                         55,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,810
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,229
<SALES>                                         47,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,520
<CGS>                                           38,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    368
<INCOME-TAX>                                       142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                226
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       226
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
§ 495.368 Combating fraud and abuse. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) The State must comply with Federal requirements to— ( i ) Ensure the qualifications of the providers who request Medicaid EHR incentive payments;
( ii ) Detect improper payments; and
( iii ) In accordance with § 455.15 and § 455.21 of this chapter, refer suspected cases of fraud and abuse to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.
( 2 ) The State must take corrective action in the case of improper EHR payment incentives to Medicaid providers.
( b ) *Providers' statements regarding submission of documentation containing falsification or concealment of a material fact on EHR incentive payment documentation.* For any forms on which a provider submits information necessary to the determination of eligibility to receive EHR payments, the State must obtain a statement that meets the following requirements: ( 1 ) Is signed by the provider and contains the following statement: “This is to certify that the foregoing information is true, accurate, and complete. I understand that Medicaid EHR incentive payments submitted under this provider number will be from Federal funds, and that any falsification, or concealment of a material fact may be prosecuted under Federal and State laws.”
( 2 ) Appears directly above the claimant's signature, or if it is printed on the reverse of the form, a reference to the statements must appear immediately preceding the provider's signature.
( 3 ) Is resubmitted upon a change in provider representative.
( 4 ) Is updated as needed.
( c ) *Overpayments.* States must repay to CMS all Federal financial participation received by providers identified as an overpayment regardless of recoupment from such providers, within 60 days of discovery of the overpayment, in accordance with sections 1903(a)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of the Act and part 433 subpart F of the regulations.
( d ) *Complying with Federal laws and regulations.* States must comply with all Federal laws and regulations designed to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, including, but not limited to applicable provisions of Federal criminal law, the False Claims Act (32 U.S.C. 3729 *et seq.*), and the anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Act).
#### Charles BARNETT, Appellant, v. William R. BARNETT, Trustee, et al., Appellees.

No. V-134.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 1974.

C. Harris Dittmar, of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Mahoney, Hadlow, Chambers & Adams, and Jack F. Wayman, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final declaratory judgment determining the question of whether or not appellant is entitled to proceeds from a trust. It was a complicated and lengthy trial and involved numerous questions as to the admissibility of evidence. The trial court, in its memorandum opinion, stated as follows regarding such evidence:

> “The Court received a great deal of evi-dentuary matter presently in the record with a reserved ruling on objections to its admissibility. The Court finds that all of these exhibits are admissible for the general purpose of presenting the overall picture. Some are inadmissible as proof of the facts they purport to recite and shall not be relied upon by the Court unless specifically referred to. The pedigree evidence is also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule; however, evidence of a more direct nature has been relied upon by the Court in reaching the ultimate conclusion herein.”

Having considered the record, the briefs and the oral argument of counsel, we find that we are unable to determine whether or not the trial court admitted or excluded much of the evidence presented in the case. We are, thus, unable to determine whether or not the trial court based its ruling on admissible or inadmissible evidence. We, therefore, temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court with directions to enter a further order making specific rulings on each objection to evidence which he took under advisement during the course of the trial and making reference to the page of the transcript where such evidence *483was offered and taken under advisement. The appellant will then be allowed a period of 10 days from the filing of the trial judge’s order to file supplemental assignments of error and appellee will thereafter be allowed 10 days within which to file cross assignments of error. Then appellant will have 10 days to file a supplemental brief and appellee will have 10 days thereafter for supplemental brief and appellant five days thereafter for reply brief. The court will thereafter give further consideration to this appeal.

RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOYER, JJ., concur.
§ 483.374 Facility reporting. ( a ) *Attestation of facility compliance.* Each psychiatric residential treatment facility that provides inpatient psychiatric services to individuals under age 21 must attest, in writing, that the facility is in compliance with CMS's standards governing the use of restraint and seclusion. This attestation must be signed by the facility director. ( 1 ) A facility with a current provider agreement with the Medicaid agency must provide its attestation to the State Medicaid agency by July 21, 2001.
( 2 ) A facility enrolling as a Medicaid provider must meet this requirement at the time it executes a provider agreement with the Medicaid agency.
( b ) *Reporting of serious occurrences.* The facility must report each serious occurrence to both the State Medicaid agency and, unless prohibited by State law, the State-designated Protection and Advocacy system. Serious occurrences that must be reported include a resident's death, a serious injury to a resident as defined in § 483.352 of this part, and a resident's suicide attempt. ( 1 ) Staff must report any serious occurrence involving a resident to both the State Medicaid agency and the State-designated Protection and Advocacy system by no later than close of business the next business day after a serious occurrence. The report must include the name of the resident involved in the serious occurrence, a description of the occurrence, and the name, street address, and telephone number of the facility.
( 2 ) In the case of a minor, the facility must notify the resident's parent(s) or legal guardian(s) as soon as possible, and in no case later than 24 hours after the serious occurrence.
( 3 ) Staff must document in the resident's record that the serious occurrence was reported to both the State Medicaid agency and the State-designated Protection and Advocacy system, including the name of the person to whom the incident was reported. A copy of the report must be maintained in the resident's record, as well as in the incident and accident report logs kept by the facility.
( c ) *Reporting of deaths.* In addition to the reporting requirements contained in paragraph (b) of this section, facilities must report the death of any resident to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regional office. ( 1 ) Staff must report the death of any resident to the CMS regional office by no later than close of business the next business day after the resident's death.
( 2 ) Staff must document in the resident's record that the death was reported to the CMS regional office.
[66 FR 7161, Jan. 22, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 28117, May 22, 2001]