alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 87.9 Which other HHS regulations apply?

Several other regulations apply to grants under this part. These include, but are not limited to:

42 CFR part 50, subpart D—Public Health Service grant appeals procedure

45 CFR part 16—Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals Board

45 CFR part 46—Protection of human subjects

45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants

45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures

45 CFR part 80—Nondiscrimination under programs receiving Federal assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

45 CFR part 81—Practice and procedure for hearing under part 80 of this Title

45 CFR part 84—Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance

45 CFR part 91—Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in HHS programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance

[49 FR 38117, Sept. 27, 1984]
#### GARDEN HILL LAND CORPORATION v. SUCCESSION of Edwin CAMBRE et al.

No. 56577.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 12, 1975.

In re: Renette Maria Cambre applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. John the Baptist. 313So.2d 864.

Writ refused. No error of law.
§ 433.66 Permissible provider-related donations. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a State may receive revenues from provider-related donations without a reduction in FFP, only in accordance with the requirements of this section.
( 2 ) The provisions of this section relating to provider-related donations for outstationed eligibility workers are effective on October 1, 1992.
( b ) *Permissible donations.* Subject to the limitations specified in § 433.67, a State may receive, without a reduction in FFP, provider-related donations that meet at least one of the following requirements: ( 1 ) The donations must be bona fide donations, as defined in § 433.54; or
( 2 ) The donations are made by a hospital, clinic, or similar entity (such as a Federally-qualified health center) for the direct costs of State or local agency personnel who are stationed at the facility to determine the eligibility (including eligibility redeterminations) of individuals for Medicaid or to provide outreach services to eligible (or potentially eligible) Medicaid individuals. Direct costs of outstationed eligibility workers refers to the costs of training, salaries and fringe benefits associated with each outstationed worker and similar allocated costs of State or local agency support staff, and a prorated cost of outreach activities applicable to the outstationed workers at these sites. The prorated costs of outreach activities will be calculated taking the percent of State outstationed eligibility workers at a facility to total outstationed eligibility workers in the State, and multiplying the percent by the total cost of outreach activities in the State. Costs for such items as State agency overhead and provider office space are not allowable for this purpose.
[57 FR 55138, Nov. 24, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 43180, Aug. 13, 1993; 73 FR 9698, Feb. 22, 2008]
Exhibit 32.1


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


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended
March 31, 2011 of AXA Equitable  Life Insurance  Company (the  "Company") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Mark Pearson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.



                                           /s/ Mark Pearson
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Mark Pearson
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Executive Officer



         Date: May 13, 2011
#### G. F. G. JANITORIAL SERVICE and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Carmen GONZALEZ and Division of Workers’ Compensation, Appellees.

No. AB-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1981.

*1246Summers Warden, Miami, for appellants.

Law Offices of John V. Christie, P. A., Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal the deputy commissioner’s award of temporary total disability benefits, 5% permanent partial disability benefits, and medical bills for claimant’s phlebitis and low back injuries. We affirm the order except for the award of permanent partial disability benefits and payment of Dr. Lopez’ bill for treatment of claimant’s low back symptoms.

There is no medical evidence in the record which indicates claimant’s low back symptoms are causally related to her industrial accident and the deputy commissioner failed to make any finding that claimant’s back injury was, in fact, causally related. The only medical evidence indicating any degree of permanent disability was relative to claimant’s back symptoms. The award of permanent partial compensation and medical benefits for the back symptoms is therefore erroneous.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J. and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
#### B. H. K. Realty Company, a corporation, complainant, *v.*Sarah Bell Scarlet et al., defendants.

[Decided March 5th, 1930.]

*Messrs. Henn & Burr,*for the motion.

*Messrs. Peer & Mohr, contra.*

Berry, V. C.

The answer of the defendants admits in part the allegations of the bill of complaint and leaves the complainant to its proof as to the remainder of those allegations. The first separate defense set up in the answer is an attack upon the validity of the tax sale proceedings. While the motion to strike out the answer is directed to the whole of it, no proofs are submitted with respect to the allegations in the bill as to which the complainant is left to his proof, and the argument has been confined to the sufficiency of the first separate defense. It is admitted for the purpose of the motion that a period of more than four months has elapsed since the filing of the answer and that no writ of *certiorari*has been “allowed *708to review the legality of such tax or other municipal lien, or the legality of the proceedings to sell, or the legality of such sale,” as required by *P. L. 1925 ch. 202 p. 480.*This being so, I am obliged under the statute to strike out the first separate defense in the answer.

Counsel for the defendant argues that as the tax sale was had in 1920 the act of 1925 is not applicable and *Rodgers*v. *Cressman, 98 N. J. Eq. 209,*and *Harrington*v. *Jones, 104 N. J. Eq. 377,*are cited in support of this argument. But the 1925 act is procedural only and applies to all suits begun after its approval. The right of redemption from’ the tax sale is not affected by the act and it is conceded by complainant that the defendant has the right to redeem. The amount to which the complainant is entitled on redemption will be determined by the laws in force at the date of the sale. *Rodgers*v. *Cressman, supra.*

After the entry of an order striking out the first separate defense in the answer the state of the pleadings will require only formal proof of the allegations of the bill and a statement of an account indicating the amount required for re demption. I will refer the matter to a master for that purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,906
<PP&E>                                          43,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,758
<SALES>                                         40,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,814
<CGS>                                           29,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    187
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 54a.7 Nondiscrimination requirement.

A religious organization that is a program participant shall not, in providing program services or engaging in outreach activities under applicable programs, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice.
Appendix 3 
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

FOR MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS 

Notice is hereby given that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on March 

26, 2008 at 9:00 AM on proposed revisions to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations for The 

Five Percent Plan Rulemaking Project which includes Rules 200 (Permit Requirements), 310 (Fugitive 

Dust), 310.01 (Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots and Unpaved 

Roadways), and Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods). The Public Hearing will be held at the Maricopa 

County Board of Supervisors’ Auditorium, 205 West Jefferson Street in Phoenix, Arizona. Copies of the final 

draft rules will be available at least 30 days prior to the hearing for public inspection at the offices of the 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), 1001 N. Central Ave. #595, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004. 

For current information call 602-372-1465 or visit the MCAQD’s website at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq and 

click on the date of the Public Hearing on the calendar on the right-hand side. Accommodations for individuals 

with disabilities, alternative format materials, sign language interpretation, and assistive listening devices are 

available upon 72 hours advance notice. If you need accommodation in order to participate in any forthcoming 

meeting or hearing, please contact Michelle Mada at michellemada@mail.maricopa.gov or (602) 372-1465 or 

contact the Maricopa County ADA Office at 602-506-1778. 

PUBLISH 

Arizona Republic Friday, February 22, 2008 and Friday, February 29, 2008 

Record Reporter Wednesday, February 27, 2008 and Wednesday, March 5, 2008 

Business Gazette Thursday, February 28, 2008 and Thursday, March 6, 2008
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – February 7, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – February 7, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

February 7, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**8:45 a.m.** Secretary Blinken meets with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**9:30 a.m**. Secretary Blinken and Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm host the U.S.-EU Energy Council Ministerial with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell and European Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson at the Department of State.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY OF OPENING REMARKS)**

*The opening remarks will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.YouTube.com/statedept**.*

**12:00 p.m.** Secretary Blinken hosts a joint press availability with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell at the Department of State.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The press availability will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.YouTube.com/statedept**.*

**1:30 p.m.**Secretary Blinken attends President Biden’s meeting with Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, at the White House.**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY THE WHITE HOUSE)**

**3:30 p.m.** Secretary Blinken meets virtually with Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and UK Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss from the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Australia, Fiji, and Hawaii from February 7-13, 2022.  Please click here for more information.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

**11:00 a.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman meets with UK Minister of State for Middle East, North Africa, and North America James Cleverly at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon has no public appointments.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland has no public appointments.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:30 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Ned Price.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1936 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the minimum Governmentwide goal for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mr. WYNN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the minimum 

Government-wide goal for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT-WIDE GOAL FOR 

4 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AWARDED TO 

5 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

6 Section 15(g)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘23 percent’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘25 percent’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40888

Summary Calendar

 

RICHARD OWENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SMITH COUNTY TEXAS; SMITH COUNTY JAIL;

TYLER POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CV-994

- - - - - - - - - -

September 25, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Owens, Texas prisoner # 780697, appeals from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Owens contends that: 

1) the district court erred by granting the city of Tyler’s

motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 2) that

the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Owens’

claim against Smith County and the Smith County Jail pursuant to
No. 97-40888

-2-

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 3) that the district court erred by denying

Owens’ motion to amend his complaint; and 4) that the district

court abused its discretion by denying Owens’ discovery motions. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we

AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same

reasons adopted by the district court. See Owens v. Smith County

et al., No. 6:96cv994 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 11, 1997).

Owens’ motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion

to strike the appellees’ brief are DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                        DEP CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE GAIN (LOSS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                             October 31,
                                                       ------------------------
                                                         1997          1996
                                                       ---------    -----------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)..................................     $510,000    $(2,063,000)
                                                       =========    ===========

Shares:
Weighted average shares outstanding................    6,876,140      6,251,140
                                                       =========    ===========


Income (loss) per share............................        $0.07         $(0.33)
                                                       =========    ===========
</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 22**  **76**

In R e: FRANKLIN C. REAVES , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 4: 09

- cv - 00 820

- TLW

- SVH )

Submitted : March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Befor e NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Franklin C. Reaves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Franklin C. Reaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that Reaves is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary ci rcumstances. Kerr v. U
. S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sa v. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)

. Reaves asserts various violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the district court, all stemming from his belief that pretrial matters were improperly assigned to the magistrate judge. Man damus, however, may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). As the review of any alleged errors by the district court may be had through the normal appellate process, the relief sought by Re aves is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Reaves’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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




                                          By:  /s/ Stephen T. McGowan
                                             -----------------------------------
                                          Name:  Stephen T. McGowan
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer
§ 493.1495 Standard; Testing personnel responsibilities. The testing personnel are responsible for specimen processing, test performance and for reporting test results. ( a ) Each individual performs only those high complexity tests that are authorized by the laboratory director and require a degree of skill commensurate with the individual's education, training or experience, and technical abilities.
( b ) Each individual performing high complexity testing must— ( 1 ) Follow the laboratory's procedures for specimen handling and processing, test analyses, reporting and maintaining records of patient test results;
( 2 ) Maintain records that demonstrate that proficiency testing samples are tested in the same manner as patient specimens;
( 3 ) Adhere to the laboratory's quality control policies, document all quality control activities, instrument and procedural calibrations and maintenance performed;
( 4 ) Follow the laboratory's established policies and procedures whenever test systems are not within the laboratory's established acceptable levels of performance;
( 5 ) Be capable of identifying problems that may adversely affect test performance or reporting of test results and either must correct the problems or immediately notify the general supervisor, technical supervisor, clinical consultant, or director;
( 6 ) Document all corrective actions taken when test systems deviate from the laboratory's established performance specifications; and
( 7 ) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, if qualified under § 493.1489(b)(5), perform high complexity testing only under the onsite, direct supervision of a general supervisor qualified under § 493.1461.
( c ) *Exception.* For individuals qualified under § 493.1489(b)(5), who were performing high complexity testing on or before January 19, 1993, the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) of this section are not effective, provided that all high complexity testing performed by the individual in the absence of a general supervisor is reviewed within 24 hours by a general supervisor qualified under § 493.1461.
[57 FR 7172, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 5236, Jan. 19, 1993; 60 FR 20050, Apr. 24, 1995]