alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 11, 2006


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


                                       21
#### § 54a.13 Educational requirements for personnel in drug treatment programs.

In determining whether personnel of a program participant that has a record of successful drug treatment for the preceding three years have satisfied State or local requirements for education and training, a State or local government shall not discriminate against education and training provided to such personnel by a religious organization, so long as such education and training is comparable to that provided by nonreligious organizations, or is comparable to education and training that the State or local government would otherwise credit for purposes of determining whether the relevant requirements have been satisfied.
§ 488.12 Effect of survey agency certification. Certifications by the State survey agency represent recommendations to CMS. ( a ) On the basis of these recommendations, CMS will determine whether: ( 1 ) A provider or supplier is eligible to participate in or be covered under the Medicare program; or
( 2 ) A provider or supplier accredited under a CMS-approved accreditation program remains deemed to meet the Medicare conditions or requirements, or will be placed under the jurisdiction of the SA and subject to further enforcement actions in accordance with the provisions at § 488.9.
( b ) Notice of CMS's determination will be sent to the provider or supplier.
[53 FR 22859, June 17, 1988, as amended at 80 FR 29839, May 22, 2015]
§ 64.4 How to apply for a grant. Applications for grants must include the following information: ( a ) *Required information on the proposed project.* ( 1 ) The nature, duration, and purpose of the training for which the application is filed.
( 2 ) The name and qualifications of the project director and any key personnel responsible for the proposed project.
( 3 ) A description of the facilities, staff, support services, and other organizational resources available to carry out the project.
( 4 ) The intended number of trainees and the minimum qualifications and criteria for their selection.
( 5 ) A description of the plan for evaluating the proposed project.
( 6 ) Other pertinent information the Secretary may require to evaluate the proposed project.
( b ) *Required information on costs.* ( 1 ) A budget for the proposed project and a justification of the amount of grant funds requested.
( 2 ) If institutional expenses are requested, a separate statement of the amounts requested for personal services, equipment, supplies, or other non-personal services.
( 3 ) If stipend costs are requested, a statement for each grant year of the estimated number of individuals to whom stipends will be provided and the length of time for which the stipend support will be provided. If other trainee costs are requested, they must be separately stated and justified.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0925-0276)
[Cite as Hunt Eng., L.L.C. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency , 2022

- Ohio

- 3557.]

{¶1} On August 23, 2022, a Spe cia l Master issued a Report and Recommenda t ion (R&R) in this public

- records case. The Special Master recommends the court dismiss the claim for production of a privilege log for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The Special Master
recommends the court find th at respondent failed to properly raise the
defense of ambiguity or overbreadth as required by R.C. 149.43(B)(2). The Special Master recommends the court deny the claim for production of
records for failure of proof by clear and convincing evidence that additional
respo n sive records exist. The Special Master further recommends the court
find that three months between each of requester ’ s revised requests and the first production of records was an unreasonable period of time in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1). It is recomme n ded that costs be assessed equally between the parties. (R&R, 10

- 11.) {¶2} N either party has timely objected to the R epo rt and R e commendat ion
, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75 (F)(2). Pu r suant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither par ty timely objects to a special mas t er’s report and recommendation, then this C ourt is re qu ired to

“ promptly issue a fina l orde r ad opting the report an d recommendation, unless it HUNT ENGINEERING, LLC
Requester

v.

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Respondent Case No. 2022

- 00243P Q
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2022

- 00243PQ

- 2

- ENTRY

determines that there is an err or of law or other defect evident on the face of the report
and r ecommendation. ” {¶3} U pon review, the Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect
eviden t on the face of the Report and R e commendation. T he Court therefore adopts the
R e port and Recommendation in accordance with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)

. Because Resp ondent deni ed Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), Requester is entitled to recover from Resp ondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty

five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by R equester
, except in g attorney fees

. Court costs are assessed equally to Requester and Resp o ndent

. T he C lerk shal l serve upon all parti es not ice of th is judgm ent and its date of entr y upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

Filed September 13 , 2022 Sent to S .C. Reporter 10 / 6 / 22
#### § 56.601 Applicability.

The regulations of this subpart, in addition to the regulations of subpart A of this part, are applicable to grants awarded pursuant to section 319(d)(1)(C) of the Act for projects for operating programs to provide health services to migratory agricultural workers, seasonal agricultural workers and the members of their families in areas in which no migrant health center exists and in which not more than 6,000 migratory agricultural workers and their families reside for more than two months.
#### Fleming v. Shannon

*McCloskey, Patrano & McCloskey,*for plaintiff.

*D. M. Cummins,*for defendant.

September 30, 1955.

Carson, P. J.,

On June 29, • 1955, plaintiff, LaVera Fleming, filed a complaint in *756assumpsit against Eva D. Shannon, to collect the sum of $1,000, which it is alleged decedent gave to defendant for the purpose of paying decedent’s funeral and burial expenses. Plaintiff brought this action as executrix of the estate of James M. Dailey, deceased. Defendant filed an answer denying that the sum of $1,000 was so given to her by decedent. In paragraph 2A of the answer, it is alleged: “In further answer to paragraph two the defendant avers that the appointment of the plaintiff as executrix aforesaid was procured by the plaintiff in probating a fraudulent will and known by the plaintiff to be fraudulent and suggests this action is improperly brought as the right of the plaintiff to act as executor has not yet been determined.”

Following this, plaintiff filed preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to strike paragraph 2A of the answer, contending that the right of plaintiff to sue as executrix could not be questioned in this proceeding despite the fact that an appeal from the decree of probate of the will of decedent is presently pending.

The paragraph in issue should be stricken. Section 208(c) of the Register of Wills Act of June 28, 1951, P. L. 638, art. II, sec. 208, 20 PS §1840.208c provides:

> “Effect of Appeal. No appeal from a decree of the register shall suspend the powers or prejudice the acts of a personal representative to whom letters have been granted.”

It is clear, therefore, that defendant cannot successfully in the instant proceeding attack the authority of plaintiff to sue.

For the reasons before set forth and considering the fact that defendant neither filed a brief nor appeared at the argument, we make the following

*Order*

And now, September 30, 1955, paragraph 2A of defendant’s answer is ordered stricken from the *757record. Defendant’s answer in all other respects is permitted to stand as filed.
<TABLE>

                      IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.

          Exhibit 11.1 - Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2000

<CAPTION>



QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000:
                                                                    Basic               Diluted
                                                                 --------------       -------------

Weighted average number of shares
<S>                                                              <C>                  <C>
        Average common shares outstanding at March 31, 2000         85,702,319          85,702,319
        Dilutive effect for stock options at March 31, 2000                -               557,511
                                                                 --------------       -------------

        Adjusted weighted average shares at March 31, 2000          85,702,319          86,259,830
                                                                 ==============       =============


Net income to be used to compute
   diluted earnings per share                                               (Dollars in
                                                                             thousands)
       Net income                                                      $92,327             $92,327
                                                                 ==============       =============

Earnings Per Share                                                       $1.08               $1.07
                                                                 ==============       =============




</TABLE>
#### Foster *v.*Foster.

4-8974

224 S. W. 2d 47

Opinion delivered November 14, 1949.

*Warren E. Wood*and *Griffin Smith, Jr.,*for appellant.

*T. J. Gentry,*for appellee.

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.

The Pulaski Chancery Court granted the husband a divorce,1 and awarded the wife alimony of one hundred dollars per month. Being dissatisfied with the award, the wife has prosecuted this appeal, and asks that the amount be increased. Her counsel succinctly said:

> “The sole issue on appeal is whether the alimony award of $100 was correct and supported by a preponderance of evidence.”

There is no necessity to detail all the facts concerning the marriage and the separation. The record *77shows that the wife has previously received substantial sums by way of property settlement, and that at the time of the trial the husband had a net monthly income of only $315.02 after deductions; and from this $315.02 he was to pay the appellant the alimony of $100 per month. From the testimony in this record, it appears that the wife needs more money; if the husband’s income were greater, then a larger award would be justified. The court has power to modify the award under a showing of changed circumstances.2 On the record now before us, however, we cannot say that the chancery court abused judicial discretion in fixing the alimony at $100 per month. In *Lewis*v. *Lewis,*202 Ark. 740, 151 S. W. 2d 998 the sole question on appeal was, as here, the amount of alimony award; and we there said:

> “This court has many times announced the rule that in fixing the amount of alimony to be awarded a wide discretion rests with the trial court and unless there appears to be a clear abuse in the exercise of this discretion it will not be disturbed by this court. In fixing the amount of alimony, of foremost consideration is the ability of the husband to pay. Consideration should also be given to the station in life of the parties. . . ."

We adjudge all costs against the husband; but we decline to allow additional attorneys’ fees. Affirmed.

1

 The ground for divorce was that the parties had lived separate and apart for three consecutive years, etc. See the 7th ground for divorce in § 34-1202, Ark. Stats. (1947).

2

*Holmes*v. *Holmes,*186 Ark. 251, 53 S. W. 2d 226; *Boniface*v. *Boniface,*179 Ark. 738, 17 S. W. 2d 897; *Green*v. *Green,*168 Ark. 937, 272 S. W. 655.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1266

ROBERT D. STEARNS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007

- OAS, mortgage pass

- through certificates, series 2007

- OA8 (“Bony”) , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthon y J

. Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 01399

- AJT

- MSN )

Submitted : June 15, 2017 Decided: June 26, 2017

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert D. Stearns, Appellant Pro Se. J.P. McGuire Boyd, Jr., WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, James Robert Germano, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert D. Stearns appeals the district court’s or der granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Stearns’ civil action for failure to state a claim. In its dispositive order, t he district court explained that it granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons expressed at the motion he aring, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript
at government expense, Stearns has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cty. , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on th e record before us, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
41619.

#### CONNER, for use v. RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Argued November 4, 1965

Decided January 7, 1966.

*884*Owens & Porter, William J. Porter, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Haas, Dunaway, Shelfer & Haas, George A. Haas, Hugh F. Newberry,*for appellee.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

In order to comply with *Code Ann.*§ 92A-605 (d), a bond must name as obligee the Governor of Georgia and include within the class of persons entitled to its protection “any holder of any final judgment arising out of the cause of action which necessitated the filing of the bond.” *Code Ann.*§ 92A-605 (d) (4). As the bond in question failed to meet these requirements, it was not a statutory bond, and thus *Campbell v. Benton,*217 Ga. 368, 371 (2) (122 SE2d 223), and other decisions of like import are not applicable here.

“The contract of suretyship is one of strict law, and the surety’s liability will not be extended by implication or interpretation.” *Code*§ 103-103. Here the defendant surety undertook to pay upon default of the principals the amount of any judgment rendered in favor of Francis Mullinax. It did not under the terms of the bond assume liability with reference to any judgment that might be rendered in favor of any other person.

*885For this reason the petition set forth no cause of action upon the bond and the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert H. BLANTON, III.

No. 63107.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Robert H. Blanton, III, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Ascension.

Writ denied.

TATE and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### § 82.25 When will NIOSH report dose reconstruction results, and to whom?

NIOSH will report dose reconstruction results to DOL and to the claimant, as provided for under § 82.10. Draft results will be reported to the claimant upon tentative completion of the dose reconstruction. Final results will be reported to the claimant, DOL and DOE after NIOSH receives certification from the claimant that the claimant has completed providing information to NIOSH for the dose reconstruction (Form OCAS-1).
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Poland (22-512) – Agreement Concerning the Deployment of In-Flight Security Officers

# 									Poland (22-512) – Agreement Concerning the Deployment of In-Flight Security Officers							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

May 12, 2022

Transportation: Aviation Security

Signed at Warsaw December 2, 2021; entered into force May 12, 2022.

 
Download Agreement						 [1 MB]

Tags

PolandTransportationTreaties

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00300

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.M.H., A CHILD,

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 244

Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Tim e

is extended to August 21, 2017. No further extension s of time will be considered absent

extraordinary circumstances

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of August, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.314 Determining payment amounts: Routine per diem rate. ( a ) *General rule.* An SNF that elects to be paid under the prospectively determined payment rate system, and qualifies for such payment, is paid a per diem rate for inpatient routine services. This rate is adjusted to reflect area wage differences and the cost reporting period beginning date (if necessary) and is subject to the limitation specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) *Per diem rate.* The prospectively determined payment rate for each urban and rural area in each census region is comprised of the following: ( 1 ) A routine operating component, which is divided into: ( i ) A labor-related portion adjusted by the appropriate wage index; and
( ii ) A nonlabor-related portion.
( 2 ) A routine capital-related cost portion.
( 3 ) For proprietary SNFs only, a portion that is based on the return on owner's equity related to routine cost, applicable only for services furnished before October 1, 1993.
( c ) *Adjustment for cost reporting period.* ( 1 ) If a facility has a cost reporting period beginning after the beginning of the Federal fiscal year, the contractor increases the labor-related and nonlabor-related portions of the prospective payment rate that would otherwise apply to the SNF by an adjustment factor. Each factor represents the projected increase in the market basket index for a specific 12-month period. The factors are used to account for inflation in costs for cost reporting periods beginning after October 1. Adjustment factors are published in the annual notice of prospectively determined payment rates described in § 413.320.
( 2 ) If a facility uses a cost reporting period that is not 12 months in duration, the contractor must obtain a special adjustment factor from CMS for the specific period.
( d ) *Limitation of prospectively determined payment rate.* The per diem prospectively determined payment rate for an SNF, excluding capital-related costs and excluding return on equity for services furnished prior to October 1, 1993, may not exceed the individual SNF's routine service cost limit. Under § 413.30, the routine service cost limit is the limit determined without regard to exemptions, exceptions, or retroactive adjustments, and is the actual limit in effect when the provider elects to be paid a prospectively determined payment rate.
|**Secondary Market Report** | **September 1998**
|--------------------------- | ------------------



---

### TABLE 9
Unsold Inventory of New Homes Compared
to Previous Month 
(Percent of Field Offices Reporting)



---

`Sep'98            Sep'97
                        ------            ------
Declining                23%               14%
Stationary               73%               83%
Advancing                 4%                3%
                                
Total                   100%              100%
                                
                                
                        Aug'98            Aug'97
                        ------            ------
Declining                20%                8%
Stationary               74%               90%
Advancing                 6%                2%
                                
Total                   100%              100%
                                
                                
                        Jul'98            Jul'97
                        ------            ------
Declining                20%               12%
Stationary               80%               83%
Advancing                 0%                5%
                                
Total                   100%              100%
                                
                                
            Percentage Point Difference                         
                                
                        Jul'98-           Jul'97-
                        Sep'98            Sep'97
                        ------            ------
Declining                 3%                2%
Stationary               -7%                0%
Advancing                 4%               -2%



Data as of: September 1, 1998                              HQE: 9-25-98`

HSG/FHA Home Page**|**Reports Menu**|**Email Us
**Date Last Modified: 09/25/98**