alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 600.605 BHP payment methodology. ( a ) *General calculation.* The Federal payment for an eligible individual in a given Federal fiscal year is the sum of the premium tax credit component, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and the cost-sharing reduction component, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Premium tax credit component.* The premium tax credit component equals 95 percent of the premium tax credit for which the eligible individual would have qualified had he or she been enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange in a given calendar year, adjusted by the relevant factors described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) *Cost-sharing reduction component.* The cost-sharing reduction component equals 95 percent of the cost of the cost-sharing reductions for which the eligible individual would have qualified had he or she been enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange in a given calendar year adjusted by the relevant factors described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Relevant factors in the payment methodology.* In determining the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction components described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary will consider the following factors to determine applicable adjustments: ( 1 ) Age of the enrollee;
( 2 ) Income of the enrollee;
( 3 ) Self-only or family coverage;
( 4 ) Geographic differences in average spending for health care across rating areas;
( 5 ) Health status of the enrollee for purposes of determining risk adjustment payments and reinsurance payments had the enrollee been enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange;
( 6 ) Reconciliation of the premium tax credit or cost-sharing reductions had such reconciliation occurred if an enrollee had been enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange;
( 7 ) Marketplace experience in other states with respect to Exchange participation and the effect of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions provided to residents, particularly those residents with income below 200 percent of the FPL; and
( 8 ) Other factors affecting the development of the methodology as determined by the Secretary.
( c ) *Annual adjustments to payment methodology.* The Secretary will adjust the payment methodology on a prospective basis to adjust for any changes in the calculation of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction components to the extent that necessary data is available for the Secretary to prospectively determine all relevant factors, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
- Our Ocean Home
- Remarks and Releases

HomeOur Ocean Conference...Remarks and Releases

# 						Remarks and Releases – Our Ocean Conference					

26 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerJennifer R. LittlejohnJohn KerryMaxine  BurkettMonica Medina

Select a LocationAustraliaCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaEgyptFijiFranceGreeceIndonesiaJapanKenyaMaltaPalauPanamaPortugalRomaniaSeychellesSri LankaThailandUnited Arab EmiratesUnited StatesVietnam

Select a Release TypeDipNoteDipNote: Climate and EnvironmentFact SheetMedia NoteOther U.S. Government ReleaseRemarksSpecial Briefing via TelephoneUSAID Release

Select a Bureau/OfficeAsia Pacific Media HubBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of Global ChangeOffice of Marine ConservationOffice of Ocean and Polar AffairsOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for ClimateUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

          -    Remarks  		Our Ocean Conference Keynote Remarks by Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry	  John KerryApril 13, 2022Our Ocean Conference 2022 Koror, Palau  
          -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Teleconference with Secretary John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate; and Monica Medina, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs in the U.S. Department of State	  John KerryApril 13, 2022 
          -    Fact Sheet  		Green Shipping Corridors Framework	  April 12, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry and Assistant Secretary Medina’s Travel to Palau	  April 8, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Medina’s Travel to Honolulu, Hawaii	  April 6, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		The United States and the Republic of Palau Partner on Our Ocean Conference 2022	  June 11, 2021 

previous page123

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00446

- CV

Paul WILLIAMS and SACC, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Barbara GRANT

, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI09043

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the joint motion filed by the parties is

GRANTED, the trial court’s judgment signed on February 19, 2019 is RE VERSED, and a take

nothing judgment against appellee, Barbara Grant, is RENDERED in accordance with the terms

of the parties’ settlement agreement.

We order that appellee, Barbara Grant, recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from

appellants, Paul W illiams and SACC, Inc.

SIGNED October 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### §§ 11.706-11.800 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2291]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5280-N-05]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E9-2291 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.310 Post-approval testing. ( a ) NIOSH will periodically test the capacity and performance of units of approved CCERs.
( b ) NIOSH may test units that are new and/or units that have been deployed in the field and have remaining service life.
( c ) NIOSH will conduct such testing pursuant to the methods specified in §§ 84.303 through 84.305, except as provided under paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section: ( 1 ) Post-approval tests may exclude human subject testing and environmental conditioning at the discretion of NIOSH.
( 2 ) The numbers of units of an approved CCER to be tested under this section may exceed the numbers of units specified for testing in §§ 84.304 and 84.305.
( d ) Failure of a unit to meet the capacity and performance requirements of this section may result in revocation of the approval for the CCER or in requirements for specific remedial actions to address the cause or causes of the failure.
( e ) NIOSH will replace deployed units obtained for testing with new NIOSH-approved units of the same or similar design, at no cost to the employer.
( f ) To maintain the approved status of a CCER, an applicant must make available for purchase by NIOSH, within 3 months of a NIOSH purchase request, the number of units requested by the Institute. Within any 12-month period, NIOSH will not request to purchase more than 100 units for post-approval testing.
[77 FR 14193, Mar. 8, 2012, as amended at 84 FR 16412, Apr. 19, 2019]
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.408 Institution of derivation proceeding.

(a) An administrative patent judge institutes, and may as necessary reinstitute, the derivation proceeding on behalf of the Director.

(b) *Additional derivation proceeding.* The petitioner may suggest the addition of a patent or application to the derivation proceeding. The suggestion should make the showings required under § 42.405 and explain why the suggestion could not have been made in the original petition.
Air Wisconsin 

A I R LINES C 0 R P 0 RAT I 0 N 

September 02, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building, ground floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Exemption 10684 renewal, Docket number: FAA-2012-1278 

Dear Sir: 

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR 11.63, Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation (A WI) petitions 

for a renewal of exemption 10684. 

Exemption number 10684 provides relief from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 121.652 (a) and (c). When granted, 

this will allow a new Air Wisconsin pilot in command (PIC), who is subject to higher landing weather minimum 

requirements, to operate to the normal, lower Category I minimums under the stipulated conditions. No changes to the 

exemption are requested. 

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the original 

grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption has been in use since January of2012 but the similar exemption 

5 549 has been in use since December, 1991 with no known compromise of safety. 

The granting of this exemption is not a controversial issue. Air Wisconsin, in accordance with the provisions of 14 CFR 

11.87 (a-d), Exceptions to Publication of Summary of Petition for Exemption, requests that a find of good cause be made 

for waiving publication in the Federal Register. No precedents will be set by granting the requested relief and this request 

is identical to previously approved requests. Air Wisconsin therefore requests that publication and the associated 

comment period be waived. 

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR 11.81, is offered below: 

Summary of Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation Petition 

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., as a Part 121 certificate holder, petitions for an exemption form 14 CFR 121.652 (a) and (c). 

This exemption permits a pilot in command under Part 121 to conduct an instrument approach procedure to the weather 

minima prescribed by this exemption during the first I 00 hours of service as a pilot in command, in the type of airplane he or 

she is operating, using an alternative means approved by the Administrator of satisfying 14 CFR 121.652 (a) and (c), subject 

to specified conditions and limitations. 

Sincerely 

Michael S. Melotte 

Flight Training Standards Development Manager 

(920) 749-7534 

Michael.Melotte@airwis.com 

W6390 Challenger Drive, Suite 203 • Appleton, WI 54914-9120 

Phone: 920-739-5123
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131816 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131816 COA: 266995 Wayne CC: 88-015076-01 MYRON ORLANDO MAYBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 22, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Department of the Environment 

for the 

Public Hearing Relating to 

Amendments to Regulation .15 Paint, Resin, and Adhesive Manufacturing and Adhesive 

Application under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes held on 

January 21, 2010 Baltimore, MD 

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with 

the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also 

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

 Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on December 18, 2009; 

MDE's website from December 17, 2009 to January 21, 2010; 

Baltimore Sun on December 18, 2009; 

Saint Mary's Enterprise on December 18, 2009; 

Cumberland Times-News on December 18, 2009; 

Frederick News-Post on December 18, 2009; 

Salisbury Daily Times on December 18, 2009; and the 

Washington Post on December 17, 2009. 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to 

the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were 

also made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air 

quality control offices. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on 

proposed amendments to Regulation .15 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary 

 

 This action repeals the general emission standard for adhesives under COMAR 

26.11.19.15C(4) and replaces it with the proposed source-specific Volatile Organic Compound 

Reasonably Available Control Technology emission limitation for the application of adhesives 

and sealants to specialty electronic systems and subsystems for defense and homeland security. 

1 
2 

The limit is 25 pounds per day of VOC from adhesive and sealant application averaged over a 

monthly period. 

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

This action will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP. 

Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt the 

amendments.
#### Hans A. B. Knudsen, Plaintiff, *v.*Victor Friedery, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special *Term,*

April, 1899.)

Partnership — Injunction not vacated for an irregularity.

Where the merits, in an action to dissolve a partnership, are with the plaintiff, his failure to serve, in connection with a preliminary injunction order, a copy of the undertaking thereby required, is an irregularity which he will be permitted to cúre and affords no suffi- ' cient reason for. vacating the injunction.

Motion to continue an injunction *pendente lite.*Counter motion by the defendant to set aside the service of the preliminary injunction order, for failure of service of a copy of the undertaking.

Edwards & Bryan, for plaintiff.

Ignatius Weltner, for defendant.

*99Giegerich, J.

The plaintiff moves for a continuance of a preliminary injunction heretofore granted, pending his action for a dissolution of a copartnership, and the defendant’s counter motion is to set aside the service of the preliminary injunction order for failure of service of a copy of the undertaking required by such order, and recited therein. The merits of the case, upon the undisputed facts, are wholly with the plaintiff, and I have no hesita^tion in granting the motion to continue the injunction. As to the service of the preliminary order it may be that the failure to serve , the undertaking is an irregularity, which, in a proper case, would suffice to cause the court to disapprove the service (1 Rumsey’s Practice, 485, and cases' cited), but there is no doubt that the irregularity may be cured and the service upheld, even where the undertaking was not in existence at the time of such service (Manley v. Leggett, 62 Hun, 562), and the matter is, therefore, one to be dealt with in the discretion of the court. Here the plaintiff’s good faith is apparent, and the defendant’s is certainly not, and. no technical point, which may properly be avoided, should be adopted at the latter’s insistence. Plaintiff’s motion granted, order to contain a direction'for the service of a copy of the undertaking *nunc pro tunc:*defendant’s motion denied. Ten dollars costs of one motion to plaintiff.

Ordered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G. Rogers,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|  | /s/ Steven G. Rogers                            |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|
|  | Steven G. Rogers (*)                            |
|  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|  | August 4, 2006                                  |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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 theQuarterly Report of Illini Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the hereof (the “Report”), I Burnard K. McHone, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 
| /s/Burnard  K. McHone                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |
| Burnard K.  McHone                     |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| November 12,  2003                     |

 

----