alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 66.208 Additional conditions.

The Secretary may, with respect to any grant award, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when in the Secretary's judgment those conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the approved program, the interests of the public health, or the conservation of grant funds.
Certification 
	The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection withAmendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2004(the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") andsection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

	Ann Murtlow, President and Chief Executive Officer and HamsaShadaksharappa, Senior VicePresident - Financial Services, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (IPALCO), each certifies that,to the best of his or her knowledge:
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of IPALCO.

 

/s/ Ann Murtlow/s/ Hamsa Shadaksharappa   Ann Murtlow   Hamsa Shadaksharappa   President and Chief Executive Officer   Senior Vice President-Financial Services, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary   August 16, 2004   August 16, 2004
	A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to IPALCO and will be retained by IPALCO and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### APPENDIX 9E 2009 INPUT 2005

**- REG.D** 

REG DIST * RESULTING MOBILE6

- BASED REGISTRATION FRACTIONS

* *MOBILE6 REGISTRATION FRACTIONS BY VEHICLE CLASS AND AGE * LDV M5 LDGV

1 0.055 0.073 0.074 0.073 0.078 0.085 0.076 0.069 0.066 0.056 0.059 0.049 0.042 0.032 0.025 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.013 * LDT1 M5 LDGT1

2 0.075 0.100 0.083 0.087 0.080 0.088 0 .079 0.078 0.064 0.051 0.048 0.042 0.029 0.019 0.014 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 * LDT2 M5 LDGT1

3 0.075 0.100 0.083 0.087 0.080 0.088 0.079 0.078 0.064 0.051 0.048 0.042 0.029 0.019 0.014 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 * LDT3 M5 LDGT2

4 0.089 0.118 0.110 0.096 0.088 0.085 0.086 0 .058 0.053 0.039 0.041 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.008 * LDT4 M5 LDGT2

5 0.089 0.118 0.110 0.096 0.088 0.085 0.086 0.058 0.053 0.039 0.041 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.008 * HDV2B M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

6 0.086 0.115 0.115 0.102 0.088 0 .084 0.070 0.039 0.061 0.035 0.041 0.028 0.017 0.011 0.008 0.010 0.017 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.013 * HDV3 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

7 0.066 0.088 0.076 0.080 0.076 0.075 0.076 0.038 0.062 0.037 0.051 0.039 0.028 0.018 0.012 0.015 0.024 0.032 0.025 0.023 0.014 0.012 0.006 0.003 0.025 * HDV4 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

8 0 .061 0.082 0.075 0.078 0.091 0.115 0.103 0.044 0.088 0.041 0.056 0.030 0.018 0.015 0.008 0.012 0.020 0.022 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.017 * HDV5 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV an d HDDV)

9 0.078 0.105 0.103 0.082 0.076 0.087 0.091 0.032 0.045 0.0270.035 0.020 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.015 0.021 0.017 0.031

0.018 0.013 0.012 0.005 0.003 0.045 * HDV6 M5 HD Vs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 10 0.063 0.084 0.057 0.067 0.081 0.099 0.083 0.061 0.048 0.038 0.052 0.024 0.021 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.018 0.021 0.022 0.018 0.015 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.054

* HDV7 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 11 0.050 0.067 0.050 0.077 0.072 0.111 0.070 0.071 0.057 0.042 0.048 0.027 0.021 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.020 0.033 0.033 0.021 0.015 0.012 0.0 04 0.003 0.039 * HDV8a M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 12 0.031 0.041 0.035 0.041 0.052 0.063 0.057 0.049 0.043 0.044 0.079 0.043 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.027 0.039 0.042 0.042 0.036 0.031 0.017 0.010 0.009 0.096 * HDV8b M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 13 0.042 0.056 0.055 0.048 0.078 0.098 0.083 0.064 0.051 0.044 0.053 0.036 0.025 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.026 0.040 0.04 2 0.028 0.024 0.010 0.004 0.005 0.051 * HDBS M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 14 0.071 0.095 0.063 0.085 0.063 0.151 0.085 0.117 0.108 0.048 0.043 0.010 0.023 0.011 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 * HDBT M5 HDDVs 15 0.052 0.069 0.074 0.080 0.090 0.108 0.100 0.082 0.058 0.047 0.061 0.018 0.021 0.013 0.014 0.017 0.01 5 0.010 0.014 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.029 * Motorcycles M5 MC 16 0.056 0.075 0.094 0.082 0.080 0.065 0.056 0.042 0.033 0.032 0.026 0.022 0.020 0.016 0.012 0.013 0.016 0.0 16 0.019 0.028 0.025 0.016 0.018 0.025 0.114
- 

## ... --....- !
.. 

### . 

# . . '

.. I •. •;"l .- . t' : '\i

.....**~---**

......... :..... 

## .. -
Maya. 2013


### U.S. Department 

### of Transportation· Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NE Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington DC 20590 Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 9945A I Regulatory Docket No. FAA-200g..oa84

To Whom It May Concern: 1 •**~** '\, . : . ;' i " This Jetter is to request 

### an e$nsiqn

## ~~;~~mption**N§;.~S,~ w~rrted**  to

## ~r.**~J;ly,** Sf:\Jer Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters, 

### by. James 

### R,**t=~r** 

### ...**M.Oi':De~** Federal Air Surgeon, on 

### September 13, 2011. 

### This exemption is 

### due to expire on**beto~l'** 31, 2013. 

### Since our exemption we have continued 

### to operate our business In aocordanoe 

### with all applicable FAA 

### regulations, including the Anti Drug 

### and 

### Alcohol Testing Program requirements of Part 135.

Enclosures


### Cc:
.. : . ;.:_ ; .. i 

## r .... -

.. .r: . ':"
.. '··:**~** ' :.**J~~** 

### R. 

### Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

### WayneLaner 

### Aviation safety 

### Inspector. Operations SANFSDO 

## · ·. \:-**~-_,** 

## .·· :.... ;·., • .. <·**;~·"·** 

## ..,.•**~,·:t** ·(**~~** .. t;...**~a-** ..**~ .:~** **~ -~;** **~-:** ,: t
... ,:, ·' 

### ..**~** 

## .... ':.; .- .. :.'**~,** ; ;, ·; ..**·:--~** ...... - :· •. ':.:t.:_,**~;l_.;:·** ·-;;• ..**~~** .**/~.'** P'j Si.

.......

,·. '• ',__'IL,.'J**~** '• :·,I ., I '• • ' .•• :-./l•**·~·** ' ::: • • 

### ,•:.**:~--** 

### :**sdlti/SioiJ_oiShiiJI'.;I~{sfionpOifJ!Jmliol!.** 6 ,**,:.~:·** .**-~ .,_:'~u·**  

## .,**WtNW.COtPQi'aJ~Helicopters.com t~ry~lonS@corporatel)eliyo,R,W:s.~,..**  . .•• . ... · · Phone'+1 (858) 505-5650 Fax-+1 (858) 

### 505-5e58 · 3753 John 

### J Montgomery Drive, Suite# 2 San Diego CA. USA I**-~** 

## ?: 13
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **June 1998**
|--------------------------- | -------------



---

### TABLE 8
Trend of Builder's Plans Compared to Previous Month
by Housing Price Category
(Percent of Field Offices Reporting)



---

`Data as of: June 1, 1998                        HQE: 7-02-98`
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.202 Air velocity and noise levels; hoods and helmets; minimum requirements.

Noise levels generated by the respirator will be measured inside the hood or helmet at maximum airflow obtainable and shall not exceed 80 dBA.
EXHIBIT 23.2



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







The Board of Directors

PAR Technology Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-119828, 33-04968, 33-39784, 33-58110, 33-63095 and 333-137647) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-102197) on Form S-3 of PAR Technology Corporation of our report dated April 4, 2012, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of PAR Technology Corporation as of December 31, 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of PAR Technology Corporation.





/s/ KPMG LLP



Syracuse, New York

March, 13, 2013
§ 600.335 Appeals. ( a ) *Notice of eligibility appeal rights.* Eligibility determinations must include a notice of the right to appeal the determination, and instructions regarding how to file an appeal.
( b ) *Appeals process.* Individuals must be given the opportunity to appeal the following actions through the appeals rules of the State's Medicaid program, unless granted an exception under paragraph (c) of this section: ( 1 ) BHP eligibility determinations; and
( 2 ) Delay, denial, reduction, suspension, or termination of health services, in whole or in part, including a determination about the type or level of service, after individuals exhaust appeals or grievances through the BHP standard health plans.
( c ) *Exception.* Subject to HHS approval, a state may request to follow an appeals process for BHP eligibility determinations and health service matters that differs from the State's Medicaid program. In its request, the State must provide a clear description of the responsibilities and functions delegated to such an entity and ensure that: ( 1 ) The State has oversight of any entity delegated the authority to administer appeals;
( 2 ) The agency to which eligibility determinations or appeals decisions are delegated complies with all relevant Federal and State law, regulations and policies; and
( 3 ) The agency to which eligibility determinations or appeals decisions are delegated informs applicants and beneficiaries how they can directly contact and obtain information from the agency.
( d ) *Accessibility.* Notices must be provided and the appeals process must be conducted in a manner accessible to individuals with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities.
[79 FR 14140, Mar. 12, 2014, as amended at 88 FR 79555, Nov. 16, 2023]
**EXHIBIT
        32**
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. §1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
        Hitchin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; 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/
                  James HitchinJames
                  Hitchin
                Chief
                  Executive & Chief Financial Officer
                November
                  14, 2006
§ 421.400 Statutory basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements section 1874A of the Act, which provides for the transition of the claims processing functions and operations for both Medicare Part A and Part B intermediaries and carriers to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). The transition will occur between October 1, 2005, and October 1, 2011. MACs will be fully operational in distinct, nonoverlapping geographic jurisdictions by October 1, 2011.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart specifies the requirements under which providers and suppliers will be assigned to MACs.
H

1/C13

– NMR and FT-IR Spectra for Certificate of Composition

 Sample ID – CIN 10081845 DC-024723 JWH2011-25

H

1

-NMR

__25___ mg of test substance added to 1mL of CDCL3 in a 5 mm I.D tube

Spectra acquired using a Varian Mercury-Vx 300 MHz spectrometer (QOD# ATD/EP-OP-001)

C

13

-NMR

__100_____ mg of test substance added to 1 ml of CDCL3 in a 5 mm ID tube

Spectra acquired using a Varian Mercury-Vx 300 MHz spectrometer (QOD# ATD/EP-OP-001)

FT-IR

Sample was run neat between NaCL plates.

Spectra acquired using a Nicolet Nexus 470 spectrometer (EPP: ICAL-SOP-0190)

Spectra:

Number Type

(

1H, 1H/1H, 13C, D2O exchange)

Full Expanded Temperature

(oC)

Chemical

Shifts

1 H1 X R/T

2 H1 X R/T

3 C13 X R/T

4 C13 X R/T X

5 FT-IR X R/T

Results

The spectra are consistent with structure for CIN 10081845. This sample contains 0.4 wt% Diglyme.

HO

CH3

H3C

H3C

CH3

CH3

H3C CH3

Analyst Signature: __Bill Lewis____________________ Date: _April 6, 2011

 FPEG WW IC ROCH QUALITY/ANALYTICAL
H

1 NMR – Full Scale

phasefil.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Chemical Shift (ppm)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

Normalized Intensity

TMS

CHLOROFORM-d

HO

CH3

H C3

H C3

CH3

CH3

CH3H C3

H

1 NMR Expanded Scale

phasefil.

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

Chemical Shift (ppm)

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0.055

0.060

Normalized Intensity

Diglyme

HO

CH3

H C3

H C3

CH3

CH3

CH3H C3
C

13 NMR Full Scale

phasefil.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Chemical Shift (ppm)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Normalized Intensity

TMS

CHLOROFORM-d

HO

CH3

H C3

H C3

CH3

CH3

CH3H C3

C

13 NMR Expanded scale with Chemical shifts

phasefil.

96 88 80 72 64 56 48 40 32 24 16

Chemical Shift (ppm)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Normalized Intensity

CHLOROFORM-d

69.03

52.21

33.12

32.70

30.01

28.84

22.92

HO

CH3

H C3

H C3

CH3

CH3

CH3H C3
FT-IR Spectrum neat

 5

 10

 15

 20

 25

 30

 35

 40

 45

 50

 55

 60

 65

 70

 75

 80

 85

%T

 3000 2000 1500 1000 800 

Wavenumbers (cm-1)
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3530

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for

legal expenses of individuals who bring sexual harassment suits against

their employers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1996

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a deduction for legal expenses of individuals who bring

sexual harassment suits against their employers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sexual Harassment

5 Tax Equity Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3530 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR LEGAL EXPENSES OF INDIVID2 UALS BRINGING SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUITS

3 AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended

6 by redesignating section 220 as section 221 and by insert7 ing after section 219 the following new section:

8 ‘‘SEC. 220. LEGAL EXPENSES OF INDIVIDUALS BRINGING

9 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUITS AGAINST THEIR

10 EMPLOYERS.

11 ‘‘In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed

12 as a deduction the amount paid during the taxable year

13 for reasonable legal fees and related expenses (including

14 attorney’s fees) with respect to a sexual harassment suit

15 by such individual against an employer or former em16 ployer.’’

17 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT TAX18 PAYER ITEMIZES.—Subsection (a) of section 62 of such

19 Code is amended by inserting the following new paragraph

20 after paragraph (15):

21 ‘‘(16) SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT LEGAL

22 COSTS.—The deduction allowed by section 220.’’

23 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

24 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code

25 is amended by striking the item relating to section 220

26 and inserting the following new items:
3

•HR 3530 IH

‘‘Sec. 219. Legal expenses of individuals bringing sexual harassment suits against their employers.

‘‘Sec. 220. Cross reference.’’

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to suits filed after January 1,

3 1997.

Æ
41577.

#### NESBIT v. THE STATE.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. Where the prosecutrix resided in Lee County, but went to a hospital in Dougherty County where her child was born and upon dismission from the hospital took the child back to her residence in Lee County and remained there, and the defendant, the putative father, at no *465time supported or contributed to the support of the child, venue of a prosecution for abandonment was properly laid in Lee County. Mere temporary absence from that county during the lying-in period at the hospital does not require a finding that the offense was committed in the county where the hospital was located rather than in the county where the prosecutrix and her child resided. *Bradley v.*State, 52 Ga. App. 203 (182 SE 821).

2. There was no error in permitting the child involved to sit with its mother at the State’s counsel table after conclusion of the evidence and arguments of counsel. That the defendant denied paternity of the child as a basis of his defense does not require a different holding. Compare *Hunt v. State,*101 Ga. App. 126 (112 SE2d 817); *Posey v. State,*46 Ga. App. 290 (167 SE 340); *Sims v. State,*16 Ga. App. 211 (84 SE 976).

If it had been error, the defendant is not in position to urge it, for his counsel, in the concluding portion of his argument just prior to the noon recess of the court, called attention to the absence of the child in the court and turning to State’s counsel asked of them why the child had not been present at the trial and where it was being kept. It was upon the reconvening of court after the noon recess that the mother brought the child with her to the counsel table, apparently in response to the query of defendant’s counsel. One cannot complain of error which he invited. *Meyers v. State,*169 Ga. 468, 479 (151 SE 34). He must stand or fall upon a position taken in open court. *Kenimer v. Ward Wight Realty Co.,*219 Ga. 275 (133 SE2d 18). When the child was brought into the courtroom defendant’s counsel objected on the ground that “it was illegal additional evidence to exhibit to the jury the child after the case was closed and after argument of counsel to the jury,” and it is now urged that the defendant was deprived of an opportunity to cross examine the prosecutrix concerning anything about the child, or to rebut the same. No request was made of the court to reopen the case for that purpose.1 This contention is without merit.

*466Argued October 5, 1965

Decided October 15, 1965.

*E. Louis Adams,*for appellant.

*Charles Burgamy, Solicitor General, Jesse W. Walters,*for appellee.

3. Though the defendant denied that he was the father of the child, there was ample evidence upon which the jury was authorized to reach a contrary conclusion. The general grounds are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

1

The grant or denial of which rests within the sound discretion of the court. *Smith v. State,*15 Ga. App. 713 (3) (84 SE 159); *Guthas v. State,*54 Ga. App. 217 (3) (187 SE 847); *Stewart v. State,*112 Ga. App. 193 (144 SE2d 561).
#### Margaret W. INGRAM, Petitioner, v. Max H. INGRAM, Respondent.

No. 56015.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 31, 1980.

David R. Lewis of Lewis, Paul, Isaac & Castillo, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Donald F. Perrin of Newton, Watson, Barry & Perrin, Jacksonville, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This case is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported as *956*Ingram*v. *Ingram,*364 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The petitioner alleges conflict with Shaw v. *Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976), on grounds that the district court substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge, despite the fact that there was no finding that the trial judge had abused his discretion. We find conflict with *Shaw v. Shaw,*as well as with our recent decision in *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*No. 54,124 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction,1 and quash the opinion of the district court.

This controversy arises from a dissolution proceeding in which the husband claimed a “special equity” in the marital home. The wife entered this marriage with title to the home which she had purchased, with a $200 down payment, approximately ten months prior to the marriage. The parties lived in the house during the eight-year marriage. During the course of the marriage both parties contributed to the house payments. The husband, who had two daughters from a previous marriage living in the marital home, contributed the majority of each mortgage payment. The husband also paid for various repairs and improvements to the home.

In its final judgment, the trial court refused to grant the husband a “special equity” in the home. The district court of appeal reversed and found that the husband’s financial contributions toward the mortgage constituted a “special equity,” and remanded the case for a determination of his share. There was no finding by the district court that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the husband’s claim of a “special equity.”

We have recently discussed the concept of “special equity” and the discretion of the trial judge in dissolution proceedings in our decisions in *Duncan v. Duncan,*379 So.2d 949, No. 53,966 (Fla.1980), and *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*No. 54,124 (Fla.1980). The determination of the trial judge that there was no “special equity,” as we have defined it in *Duncan*and *Canakaris,*was proper. *Ball*v. *Ball,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). This does not mean that the trial judge was without the discretionary authority to make an alimony award to the husband if such an award was necessary to do equity between the parties.

We quash the opinion of the district court. In view of our decisions in *Duncan*and *Canakaris,*we direct that the district court remand to the trial judge for reconsideration if he deems it appropriate, given all the circumstances of the case.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

SUNDBERG, J., concurs in result only.

1

. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
§ 456.405 Description of UR review function: How and when. The UR plan must include a written description of— ( a ) How UR is performed in the ICF; and
( b ) When UR is performed.