alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 600.415 Contracting qualifications and requirements. ( a ) *Eligible offerors for standard health plan contracts.* A State may enter into contracts for the administration and provision of standard health plans under the BHP with, but not limited to, the following entities: ( 1 ) Licensed health maintenance organization.
( 2 ) Licensed health insurance insurer.
( 3 ) Network of health care providers demonstrating capacity to meet the criteria set forth in § 600.410(d).
( 4 ) Non-licensed health maintenance organizations participating in Medicaid and/or CHIP.
( b ) *General contract requirements.* ( 1 ) A State contracting with eligible standard health plan offerors described in paragraph (a) of this section must include contract provisions addressing network adequacy, service provision and authorization, quality and performance, enrollment procedures, disenrollment procedures, noticing and appeals, provisions protecting the privacy and security of personally identifiable information, and other applicable contract requirements as determined by the Secretary to the extent that the service delivery model furthers the objectives of the program.
( 2 ) All contracts under this part must include provisions that define a sound and complete procurement contract, as required by 45 CFR 92.36(i).
( 3 ) To the extent that the standard health plan is health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer, the contract must provide that the medical loss ratio is at least 85 percent.
( c ) *Notification of State election.* To receive HHS certification, the State must include in its BHP Blueprint the standard set of contract requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section that will be incorporated into its standard health plan contracts.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

E.M., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-1951

[January 28, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Elijah H. Williams, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

12003369DL00A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia L. 

Comras, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See M.H.-R v. State, 61 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.19

                      Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
                     101 Market Street, San Francisco  94105



                              November 6, 2003

Ryan Schlichting
Manager, Enforcement
Banking Supervision and Regulation



Mr. Llewellyn Stone
President and Chief Executive Officer
Community West Bancshares
455 Pine Avenue
Goleta, California  93117

Dear Mr. Stone:

     This is in regards to the Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") between
Community West Bancshares ("Bancshares") and the Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco (the "Reserve Bank"), effective February 22, 2001.

     Our records indicate that Bancshares has continued to sustain compliance
with the Reserve Bank's MOU since the fourth quarter of 2001, including the
correction of 23 A & B violations of law, strengthening of internal controls,
reduction of the level of debt, and improved capital planning.  Moreover, our
review indicates that the subsidiary bank, Goleta National Bank has achieved
full compliance with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's consent
order dated October 28, 2002, which was lifted on October 21, 2003.  As a result
of the findings noted above, the Reserve Bank hereby rescinds the MOU.

     As part of this Reserve Bank's initiative to conduct a risk-focused
supervisory program, we will continue to monitor your institution's risk profile
using bank and holding company regulatory reports, public information, and the
examination reports we receive from your primary bank supervisor.  Should you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.


                              Sincerely,

                              /s/ Ryan D. Schlichting



                  Telephone: (415) 974-2896 FAX: (415) 974-2855
                       Email: ryan.schlichting@sf.frb.org


<PAGE>
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION: SIMULATOR PERIODS V. PRO POSED HOUR REQUIREMENTS MEMO FOR THE RECORD (DOCKET # FAA-2008-0677)

During a phone conversation on June 1, 2011, Kevin Comstock from ALPA requested

clarification regarding how the 6 hours of required recurrent tra ining every 9 months (24 hrs over 36 months) discussed in the SNPRM table on page 10 (of the 5/13/11 prelease version) fits with the current simulator hour/perio d requirements of 121.409.

Mr. James Sheppard, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA, explained that the SNPRM focuses on the number of hours required to train tasks, not simulator periods. Mr. Sheppard stated that all references to simulator periods should hav e been removed from the SNPRM text.

He noted that there was an erroneous reference to s imulator periods in SNPRM § 121.1367. Mr. Sheppard further explained that th e “Technical Report” was written as a result of an FAA test to determine if the tasks req uired in the NPRM could be accomplished in a 4-hour simulator period. Upon con clusion and analysis of the test, the FAA determined that the proposed requirements shoul d focus on the number of hours required to complete recurrent training and evaluat ion rather than simulator periods.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Increasing Pressure on the Burmese Military Regime and Its Supporters

# 									Increasing Pressure on the Burmese Military Regime and Its Supporters							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

January 31, 2022

Since the military coup of February 1, 2021, the people of Burma have stood firm in rejecting military rule and calling for their country’s return to the path to inclusive democracy.  Tragically, in its continued violent quest to consolidate control, the regime has killed nearly 1,500 people, including women and children, and detained some 10,000 more, including civilian officials, civil society and labor activists, journalists, and foreign citizens.

On the one-year anniversary of the coup, the United States is imposing sanctions on the Directorate of Procurement of the Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services; on Tay Za, a prominent business supporter of the regime, and his adult sons, Htoo Htet Tay Za and Pye Phyo Tay Za; and on prominent business supporter of the regime Jonathan Myo Kyaw Thaung and his KT Services and Logistics (KTSL) Company Limited.  Today’s action also includes the designation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Tun Tun Oo, Union Attorney General Thida Oo, and Anti-Corruption Commission Chair Tin Oo for their role in enabling the regime to undermine the rule of law and Burma’s democratic institutions.  These actions were taken pursuant to Executive Order 14014.

We are coordinating these actions with the United Kingdom and Canada to demonstrate the international community’s strong support for the people of Burma and to further promote accountability for the coup and the violence perpetrated by the regime, including the killing of at least 35 people including children and humanitarian workers in Kayah State on Christmas Eve last year.  The United States will continue to work with our international partners to address human rights abuses and press the regime to cease the violence, release all those unjustly detained, allow unhindered humanitarian access, and restore Burma’s path to democracy.

For more information about today’s action, see Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBurmaDemocracyDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3360

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year

waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits following the divorce.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 1996

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate

the two-year waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits

following the divorce.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD

4 FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE’S BENEFITS FOLLOW5 ING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RE6 CEIPT OF SPOUSE’S BENEFITS.

7 (a) WIFE’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section

8 202(b)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

9 402(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘divorced wife—’’

10 and all that follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and insert-
2

•HR 3360 IH

1 ing ‘‘divorced wife meets the requirements of subpara2 graphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be enti3 tled’’.

4 (b) HUSBAND’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section

5 202(c)(5)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(A)) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘divorced husband—’’ and all that

7 follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and inserting ‘‘divorced

8 husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A)

9 through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled’’.

10 (c) EXEMPTION FROM DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF

11 WORK.—Section 203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

12 403(b)(2)) is amended—

13 (1) by striking ‘‘(2)(A) Except as’’ and all that

14 follows through ‘‘the benefit to which’’ and inserting

15 the following: ‘‘(2) In any case in which any of the

16 other persons referred to in paragraph (1)(B) is en17 titled to monthly benefits as a divorced spouse under

18 subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for any month,

19 the benefit to which’’; and

20 (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

21 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

22 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with

23 respect to benefits for months after the date of the enact24 ment of this Act.

Æ
ina McCarthy UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D

.C 20460



# JUL - 5 2011
OFFICE OF Mr. James O. Vick AIR A' D RAD A'I') Environmental Affairs Director GulfPower One Energy Place Pensacola, Florida 32520 Dear Mr. Vick : Thank you for your letter ofMay 23, 2011, requesting an extension of the public comment period for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Coal- and Oilfired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule) , which was published in the 

### Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment period of 60 days; that period would have ended on July 5 , 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4. While we are extending the comment period, we are not seeking to extend the November 16, 2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline. The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-day period to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http ://www.epa.gov/ttniatw/utility/utilitypg.html). along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used 

### in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning of the formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. 

### It will also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed
. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this comment period is significantly longer than statutorily required. Again, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour comments. Sincerely,

Assistant Administrator

Internet Add ress (URll • 1 111p IIwww epa go Recyc led/Recyclable' Printed With egelable 0 1 1 Based Inks en . 00':'1> Postco"sumer. Process Ch lonn" Free Rerycled**Pa pr**
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.118 Half-mask facepieces, full facepieces, and mouthpieces; fit; minimum requirements. ( a ) Half-mask facepieces and full facepieces shall be designed and constructed to fit persons with various facial shapes and sizes either: ( 1 ) By providing more than one facepiece size; or
( 2 ) By providing one facepiece size which will fit varying facial shapes and sizes.
( b ) Full facepieces shall provide for optional use of corrective spectacles or lenses, which shall not reduce the respiratory protective qualities of the gas mask.
( c ) Half-mask facepieces shall not interfere with the fit of common industrial safety spectacles, as determined by the Institute's facepiece tests in § 84.124.
( d ) Gas masks with mouthpieces shall be equipped with noseclips which are securely attached to the mouthpiece or gas mask and provide an airtight seal.
( e ) Facepieces shall be designed to prevent eyepiece fogging.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7013

ERNEST BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Charles Molony Condon,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-95-2215-0-19BD)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Moore, No. CA-95-2215-0-

19BD (D.S.C. June 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.123 Exhalation valve leakage test. ( a ) Dry exhalation valves and valve seats will be subjected to a suction of 25 mm. water-column height while in a normal operating position.
( b ) Leakage between the valve and valve seat shall not exceed 30 milliliters per minute.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

Order 

June 23, 2021

163084-5(89)(90)

HORACE SHEFFIELD, III, and RODRICK

HARBIN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 163084

v COA: 357298

Wayne CC: 21-006043-AW

DETROIT CITY CLERK and DETROIT 

ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendants, 

and

DETROIT CHARTER REVISION 

COMMISSION,

Intervening DefendantAppellant.

_____________________________________/

ALLEN A. LEWIS and INGRID D. WHITE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 163085

v COA: 357299

Wayne CC: 21-006040-AW

DETROIT CITY CLERK and DETROIT 

ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendants, 

and

DETROIT CHARTER REVISION 

COMMISSION,

Intervening DefendantAppellant.

_____________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 23, 2021

2

Clerk

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of We Care About Van Dyke-Seven Mile 

and Helco Block Club to file a brief amicus curiae and for immediate consideration are

GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on June 17, 2021, is accepted for filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         174,412
<SECURITIES>                                 1,695,512
<RECEIVABLES>                                  517,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                   285,480
<INVENTORY>                                    657,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,868,844
<PP&E>                                       2,649,717
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,057,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,740,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          835,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,649
<OTHER-SE>                                     791,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,740,499
<SALES>                                        455,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               477,979
<CGS>                                          148,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  979,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                61,658
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (761,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (761,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (761,215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)
        



</TABLE>
§ 493.1100 Condition: Facility administration. Each laboratory that performs nonwaived testing must meet the applicable requirements under §§ 493.1101 through 493.1105, unless HHS approves a procedure that provides equivalent quality testing as specified in Appendix C of the State Operations Manual (CMS Pub. 7). ( a ) *Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 test results.* During the Public Health Emergency, as defined in § 400.200 of this chapter, each laboratory that performs a test that is intended to detect SARS-CoV-2 or to diagnose a possible case of COVID-19 (hereinafter referred to as a “SARS-CoV-2 test”) must report SARS-CoV-2 test results to the Secretary in such form and manner, and at such timing and frequency, as the Secretary may prescribe.
( b ) [Reserved]
[68 FR 3703, Jan. 24, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 54873, Sept. 2, 2020]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – July 26, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – July 26, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

July 25, 2021

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN****2:00 p.m.** Secretary Blinken attends President Biden’s bilateral meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, at the White House.**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY THE WHITE HOUSE)**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to India and Kuwait from July 26-29, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**Deputy Secretary Sherman is on travel to China and Oman from July 25-27, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS JOEY HOOD**Acting Assistant Secretary Hood is on travel to Algeria, Morocco, and Kuwait from July 24-29, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**No Department Press Briefing

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 498.86 Evidence admissible on review. ( a ) Except for provider or supplier enrollment appeals, the Board may admit evidence into the record in addition to the evidence introduced at the ALJ hearing (or the documents considered by the ALJ if the hearing was waived) if the Board considers that the additional evidence is relevant and material to an issue before it.
( b ) If it appears to the Board that additional relevant evidence is available, the Board will require that it be produced.
( c ) Before additional evidence is admitted into the record— ( 1 ) Notice is mailed to the parties (unless they have waived notice) stating that evidence will be received regarding specified issues; and
( 2 ) The parties are given a reasonable time to comment and to present other evidence pertinent to the specified issues.
( d ) If additional evidence is presented orally to the Board, a transcript is prepared and made available to any party upon request.
[52 FR 22446, June 12, 1987, as amended at 73 FR 36463, June 27, 2008]
§ 493.51 Notification requirements for laboratories issued a certificate of compliance. Laboratories issued a certificate of compliance must meet the following conditions: ( a ) Notify HHS or its designee within 30 days of any change in— ( 1 ) Ownership;
( 2 ) Name;
( 3 ) Location;
( 4 ) Director; or
( 5 ) Technical supervisor (laboratories performing high complexity only).
( b ) Notify HHS no later than 6 months after performing any test or examination within a specialty or subspecialty area that is not included on the laboratory's certificate of compliance, so that compliance with requirements can be determined.
( c ) Notify HHS no later than 6 months after any deletions or changes in test methodologies for any test or examination included in a specialty or subspecialty, or both, for which the laboratory has been issued a certificate of compliance.
[57 FR 7143, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 20046, Apr. 24, 1995]