alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIn-flight measurements of wing ice shapes and wing section drag increases caused by natural icing conditionsAircraft icing flight research was performed in natural icing conditions with a twin engine computer type STOL aircraft. In-flight measurements were made of the icing cloud environment, the shape of the ice accretion on the wing, and the corresponding increase in the wing section drag. Results are presented for three icing encounters. On one flight, the wing section drag coefficient increased 35 percent over the uniced baseline for cruise conditions while a 43 percent increase was observed at an aircraft angle of attack of 6.2 degrees.Document ID19860015196Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMikkelsen, K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Juhasz, N.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Ranaudo, R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Mcknight, R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Freedman, R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Greissing, J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1986Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:87301E-3013NASA-TM-87301Accession Number86N24667Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-68-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860015196.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2787 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2787

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 
  discriminatory copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric services 
                      under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2003

 Mr. Strickland (for himself and Mr. Murphy) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 
  discriminatory copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric services 
                      under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Mental Health Copayment 
Equity Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATORY COPAYMENT RATES FOR MEDICARE 
              OUTPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES.

    Section 1833(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(c)) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, with 
respect to expenses incurred in a calendar year in connection with the 
treatment of mental, psychoneurotic, and personality disorders of an 
individual who is not an inpatient of a hospital at the time such 
expenses are incurred, there shall be considered as incurred expenses 
for purposes of subsections (a) and (b)--
            ``(A) for expenses incurred in any year before 2004, only 
        62\1/2\ percent of such expenses;
            ``(B) for expenses incurred in 2004, only 68\3/4\ percent 
        of such expenses;
            ``(C) for expenses incurred in 2005, only 75 percent of 
        such expenses;
            ``(D) for expenses incurred in 2006, only 81\1/4\ percent 
        of such expenses;
            ``(E) for expenses incurred in 2007, only 87\1/2\ percent 
        of such expenses;
            ``(F) for expenses incurred in 2008, only 93\3/4\ percent 
        of such expenses; and
            ``(G) for expenses incurred in 2009 or any subsequent year, 
        100 percent of such expenses.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `treatment' does 
not include brief office visits (as defined by the Secretary) for the 
sole purpose of monitoring or changing drug prescriptions used in the 
treatment of such disorders or partial hospitalization services that 
are not directly provided by a physician.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.1

I, Pasquale Natuzzi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 20-F of Natuzzi S.p.A.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys
other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered
by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 30, 2014



/s/ Pasquale NatuzziName:

Pasquale NatuzziTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
#### § 261a.11 Restrictions on disclosure.

We will not disclose any record about you contained in a system of records to any person or agency without your prior written consent unless the disclosure is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 552a(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS THIRD QUARTER
              YEAR-TO-DATE OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
              IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
              STATEMENTS
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   14,595
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            13,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                               2,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         30,996
<PP&E>                                                  123,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          280,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    35,223
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                     68
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                3,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            280,256
<SALES>                                                  49,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         49,733
<CGS>                                                    26,361
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            26,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       10,543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          11,831
<INCOME-TAX>                                              4,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       7,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                              7,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              1.04
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 225

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

#### § 225.141 Operations subsidiaries of a bank holding company.

In orders approving the retention by a bank holding company of a 4(c)(8) subsidiary, the Board has stated that it would permit, without any specific regulatory approval, the formation of a wholly owned subsidiary of an approved 4(c)(8) company to engage in activities that such a company could itself engage in directly through a division or department. (*Northwestern Financial Corporation,* 65 Federal Reserve Bulletin 566 (1979).) Section 4(a)(2) of the Act provides generally that a bank holding company may engage directly in the business of managing and controlling banks and permissible nonbank activities, and in furnishing services directly to its subsidiaries. Even though section 4 of the Act generally prohibits the acquisition of shares of nonbanking organizations, the Board does not believe that such prohibition should apply to the formation by a holding company of a wholly-owned subsidiary to engage in activities that it could engage in directly. Accordingly, as a general matter, the Board will permit without any regulatory approval a bank holding company to form a wholly-owned subsidiary to perform servicing activities for subsidiaries that the holding company itself could perform directly or through a department or a division under section 4(a)(2) of the Act. The Board believes that permitting this type of subsidiary is not inconsistent with the nonbanking prohibitions of section 4 of the Act, and is consistent with the authority in section 4(c)(1)(C) of the Act, which permits a bank holding company, without regulatory approval, to form a subsidiary to perform services for its *banking* subsidiaries. The Board notes, however, that a servicing subsidiary established by a bank holding company in reliance on this interpretation will be an affiliate of the subsidiary bank of the holding company for the purposes of the lending restrictions of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. (12 U.S.C. 371c)

(12 U.S.C. 1843(a)(2) and 1844(b))

[45 FR 54326, July 15, 1980]
§ 231.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This part (Regulation EE; 12 CFR part 231) is issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the authority of sections 402(1)(B) and 402(9) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 4402(1)(B) and 4402(9)).
( b ) *Purpose and scope.* The purpose of the Act and this part is to enhance efficiency and reduce systemic risk in the financial markets. This part expands the Act's definition of “financial institution” to allow more financial market participants to avail themselves of the netting provisions set forth in sections 401-407 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 4401-4407). This part does not affect the status of those financial institutions specifically defined in the Act.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7297

MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Rev.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-968)

Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore

Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition. 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Parker v. Angelone, No. CA-94-968 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2018280EN.01000401.xml

| 9.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 April 2018

in Case E-7/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/29/EU)

(2018/C 280/04)

In Case E-7/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and in any event has failed to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement the Act, as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 24 April 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00481

- CR

Adrian Robert Brooks

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

o f Tarrant County (1207839D )

August 7, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board


Revised Proposal for Changes to the Format of Annual Reports 
Submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board; Extension of Comment Period

    On September 14, 2009, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 
published a notice seeking comments on proposed revisions to the format 
of annual reports that are submitted by grantees to the FTZ Board. The 
comment period on the revised proposal is being extended to November 
16, 2009 to allow interested parties additional time in which to 
comment.
    Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary 
at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 
1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Submissions can be 
e-mailed to the address provided below.
    Any questions about this proposal should be directed to Elizabeth 
Whiteman at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d381114071c1f180915222a15140918101c133d14091c5319121e531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2b79e9b88939097869aada59a9b86979f939cb29b8693dc969d91dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: October 2, 2009.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24603 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3045

To amend section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 to permanently extend the public service cap exemption for 

certain grantees under the community development block grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. DREIER (for himself and Ms. WATERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To amend section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to permanently extend the public 

service cap exemption for certain grantees under the 

community development block grant program.

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 ‘‘Public Services Flexi5 bility Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 3045 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PUBLIC SERVICES CAP EXEMPTION. 

2 Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community 

3 Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is 

4 amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘each of fiscal years 1993 

6 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘any fiscal year’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘each’’ before ‘‘such fiscal 

8 year’’.

Æ
# C_2017224EN.01001701.xml

| 13.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2017

in Case E-14/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road)

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road)

(2017/C 224/08)

In Case E-14/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing to comply with Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) of the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing, within the time prescribed, to implement Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5 and Article 9(1) of the Act. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing, within the time prescribed, to implement Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5 and Article 9(1) of the Act.

| 2. | Dismisses the application as regards failure to comply with Article 6(1) of the Act. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as regards failure to comply with Article 6(1) of the Act.

| 3. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---