alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Revision to Section IV of the Field Office Technical Guide; 
Oregon and Washington State

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service

ACTION: Notice of change.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 343 of Subtitle E of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) that requires 
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide public notice and comment under 
Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, with regard to any future 
technical guides that are used to carry out Subtitles A, B, and C of 
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, gives notice of revisions to applicable conservation 
practices in Section IV of the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) 
located in Oregon and Washington State.
    The proposed revisions to conservation practices in Section IV of 
State Technical Guides are subject to these provisions, since one or 
more could be used as part of a conservation management system to 
comply with the Highly Erodible Land Conservation or Wetland 
Conservation requirements.
    At this time, two versions of conservation practice standard 777 
Residue Management, Direct Seed (Interim) are being added and/or 
revised to Section IV of the FOTG; one for Oregon and one for 
Washington (see below):

<bullet> Residue Management, Direct Seed (Interim) (Oregon)--NRCS Code 
Number 777
<bullet> Residue Management, Direct Seed (Interim) (Washington)--NRCS 
Code Number 777

    You may request a hard copy of the practice standards and provide 
your comments to:

Oregon
    Roy Carlson, State Resource Conservationist, 101 SW Main Street, 
Suite 1300, Portland, OR, 97204-3221, (503) 414-3277
Washington
    Marty Seamons, Program Support Specialist, W. 316 Boone Avenue, 
Suite 450, Spokane, WA 99201-2348, (509) 323-2967

    You may also obtain a copy of both Oregon and/or Washington's 
practice standard by accessing the NRCS Washington State Internet 
website. The internet address is: http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/nrcs/
    Click on ``Field Office Technical Guide'' on the left side of the 
page, then click on ``Section IV,'' then ``Index of Draft Standards and 
Specifications for Review and Comment,'' and finally click on the blue 
star of the appropriate standard.

    Dated: April 28, 2000.
Leonard Jordan,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 00-11842 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-06-M
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4943 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide enhanced Federal 

matching payments for direct support worker training programs, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2020 

Mr. KING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

enhanced Federal matching payments for direct support 

worker training programs, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Direct Support Worker 

5 Training Reimbursement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID FUNDING FOR DIRECT SUPPORT WORK7 ER TRAINING PROGRAMS. 

8 Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1396b) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4943 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end 

2 the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(F) for calendar quarters beginning on or 

4 after January 1, 2021, an amount equal to 75 per5 cent of so much of the sums expended during such 

6 quarter for direct support worker training programs 

7 described in subsection (bb) (including the costs for 

8 eligible direct support workers (as defined in such 

9 subsection) to complete such programs); plus’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(bb) DIRECT SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING PRO13 GRAMS.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A direct support worker 

15 training program described in this subsection is a 

16 program approved by the State under which eligible 

17 homecare workers are provided with— 

18 ‘‘(A) training in the core training com19 petencies for personal or home care aides de20 scribed in section 2008(b)(3)(A); and 

21 ‘‘(B) opportunities for education, training, 

22 and career advancement. 

23 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE DIRECT SUPPORT WORKER.— 

24 The term ‘eligible direct support worker’ means a 

25 personal or home care aide (as such term is defined 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4943 IS

1 in section 2008(b)(6)(C)), a direct support worker, 

2 a home health aide, a nursing assistant, or a direct 

3 support professional who— 

4 ‘‘(A) has at least 30 percent of the work5 er’s direct support client volume (as estimated 

6 in accordance with a methodology established 

7 by the Secretary) attributable to individuals 

8 who are receiving medical assistance under this 

9 title; or 

10 ‘‘(B) is employed by an agency that is a 

11 provider of direct support services that has at 

12 least 30 percent of the agency’s direct support 

13 client volume (as so estimated) attributable to 

14 such individuals.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**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**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of ProLink Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify to his knowledge, that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the
“Form
      10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly represents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the company.





Dated:
              November 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Lawrence
              D. BainLawrence
              D. BainChief
              Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
              Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S. 490 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ‘‘B–47 Ridge’’. 

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 ‘‘B–47 Ridge Designation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF B–47 RIDGE, MONTANA. 

(a) DESIGNATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The unnamed mountain ridge located 

at 45°14′40.89′′ N., 110°43′38.75′′ W. that runs south and west 

of Emigrant Peak in the Absaroka Range in the State of Montana, which is the approximate site of a crash of a B–47, 

shall be known and designated as ‘‘B–47 Ridge’’. 

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 

ridge described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference to ‘‘B–47 Ridge’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION FOR PLAQUE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture may 

authorize the installation and maintenance of a plaque on 

B–47 Ridge that— 

(A) memorializes the 1962 crash of the B–47 aircraft 

at the site; and 

(B) may include the names of the victims of the crash. 

(2) AUTHORIZED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary 

of Agriculture may include any terms and conditions in the 

authorization for a plaque under paragraph (1) that the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be necessary. 
S. 490—2 

(3) FUNDING.—No Federal funds may be used to design, 

procure, install, or maintain the plaque authorized under paragraph (1). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
exv10w27










EXHIBIT 10.27




HELIX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN

Amendment No. 2




WHEREAS, Helix Technology Corporation established the Helix Technology Corporation Employees’
Pension Plan (the “Plan”) effective January 1,1979; and



WHEREAS, Brooks Automation, Inc. (the “Company”) became the sponsor of the Plan upon the
acquisition of Helix Technology Corporation; and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Brooks Automation, Inc. or its delegate may amend the Plan
pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Company previously submitted a Voluntary Compliance Program (“VCP”) application to
correct the failure to satisfy the required minimum distribution rules under Section 401(a)(9) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for certain missing participants; and



WHEREAS, as a result of the VCP submission referenced above, the IRS has accepted the
proposed method of correcting the failure, which includes amending the Plan; and



WHEREAS, consistent with the accepted method of correction, the Company desires to amend the Plan
to permit the forfeiture of benefits payable to missing participants, once reasonable efforts have
been made to locate those individuals, provided such benefits will be reinstated upon a claim from
the participant or beneficiary;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective May 20th, 2009, Section 14.4 of the Plan is hereby amended, to
add a new subparagraph, (d) to read in its entirety as follows:




“(d) If a person to whom benefits must be distributed cannot be located, and reasonable
efforts have been made to locate such person, the benefits shall be forfeited. If a
person whose benefit has been forfeited in accordance with this section subsequently
returns or makes a claim for benefits, the person’s forfeited benefit shall be
reinstated.”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer this 16th day of 

October, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BROOKS AUTOMATION, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ William T. Montone
 	 
	 	 	WILLIAM T. MONTONE  	 
	 	 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources
§ 5.73 Safety performance assessment. ( a ) Any person required to have an SMS under this part must conduct assessments of its safety performance against its safety objectives, which include reviews by the accountable executive, to: ( 1 ) Ensure compliance with the safety risk controls established by the person.
( 2 ) Evaluate the performance of the SMS.
( 3 ) Evaluate the effectiveness of the safety risk controls established under § 5.55(c) and identify any ineffective controls.
( 4 ) Identify changes in the operational environment that may introduce new hazards.
( 5 ) Identify new hazards.
( b ) Upon completion of the assessment, if ineffective controls or new hazards are identified under paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section, the person must use the safety risk management process described in subpart C of this part.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0671, Amdt. 5-1, 80 FR 1326, Jan. 8, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 5-2, 89 FR 33108, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### WALLACK v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 87-047 AC (County Court Case No. 86-69330)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

September 18, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Mel Black for appellant.

Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, SHAPIRO, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

DONNER, Judge.

The facts in this case show that the dispute which took place between the police officer and the Appellant does not rise to the level of disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court has limited the definition of disorderly conduct to include only “words which by their very utterance . . . inflect injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace”, *Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,*315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S. Ct. 766.

*147The defendant here merely used an expletive, which the police officer admitted was not even directed at him. His conduct, in trying to turn on his car to prevent the wrecker from damaging the car’s unique chassis upon towing, does not rise to the level of obstructing a police officer in his line of duty. Clearly here the police officer became embroiled in a mere controversy between himself and the Appellant wherein the police officer decided to arrest the Appellant only immediately after the Appellant requested the police officer’s name and badge number.

The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers, *Houston, Texas v. Hill,*No. 86-243, but it “is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantial evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.” *Terminiello v. Chicago,*377 U.S. 1, 4 (1949).

The Court therefore reverses and remands this case to the County Court for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

SHAPIRO, J., DISSENTS.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2193

JESSIE ROYSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NHP MANAGEMENT COMPANY; APARTMENT INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 290-L) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: May 16, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edith A. Lawson-Jackson, E. A. LAWSON-JACKSON & ASSOCIATES, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan W. Greenbaum, Adrian V. Nelson, II, Gina Janeiro Lisher, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jessie Royster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Royster v. NHP Management Co. , No. CA-00-290-L (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2001). 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
#### ATKINSON et al. v. SHAFFER.

No. 29652.

May 7, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 943.*

Jarman, Brown, Looney & Watts, of Oklahoma City, and Herman Lautaret, of Norman, for plaintiffs in error.

Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action on a promissory note. Judgment was for the plaintiff against the defendants. No defense was presented in the trial court. A motion to dismiss has been filed on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and taken for delay only. A response to said motion fails to point out or suggest any defense. This court has held that where on an examination of the record and the motion to dismiss, together with the response made thereto, it is shown that no issue is presented, the appeal will be dismissed. Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co., 179 Okla. 559, 67 P. 2d 448; Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560, 67 P. 2d 447. Such is the situation in the case at bar.

The appeal is dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
#### § 18.408 Compromise and offers to compromise.

Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or of accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, or negativing a contention of undue delay.
#### CLARK etc v STATE ex PORTSMOUTH BAR & LAW LIB ASSN

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided April 17, 1929

J Alden Staker for Clark.

John F Johnley, Portsmouth, for State ex.

HOUCK & LEMERT, JJ. of the 5th dist. sitting with MAUCK, J. of the 4th Dist.

MAUCK, J.

If it be true that the provision referred to in the act creating the Municipal Court of Portsmouth accomplishes an implied repeal to that extent of Section 3056 it must for the same reason accomnlish an implied repeal of various other sections of the General Code. By Section 1177-14 certain fines collected in state cases are required to be paid to the 'Secretary of Agriculture. The same provision obtains in Section 1177-58. Under Section 1313 fines collected for the violation of the laws governing the practice of pharmacy are payable to the State Board of Pharmacy. According to Section 977 fines collected for the violation of the mining laws are paid to the Chief Inspector of Mines, and similar provisions will be found in other statutes. If we adopt the view urged by the plaintiff in error we would be driven to the position that while elsewhere in the state general laws provide for the payment of fines to various different officers and bodies a different rule would obtain in Portsmouth by *314virtue of the special legislation creating its municipal court. The constitution authorizes the creation of a special court in a particular city but it does not authorize the legislature in creating that court to limit the operation of other laws of a general nature passed for the purpose of operating uniformly throughout the state. To give to Section 1579-483 G.C. the construction contended for by the plaintiff in error would be to give to that section an unconstitutional operation. An act of the general ,assemblv is never given a construction that would render its operation unconstitutional if any other interpretation is possible. What the section refered to means, in our judgment, is that the clerk of the municipal court of Portsmouth shall monthly pay into the county treasury any proportion of the fines collected to which that treasury may under the general laws of the state be entitled.

Our conclusion is in entire harmony with the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the Second District in the case of State ex rel Campbell v Cromer, in Miami County, and with the authorities referred to in that opinion.

The judgement of the Common Pleas Court in this case is affirmed.

Houck and Lemert, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT (3.i)

                             AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS

                     MERRY LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.
                                 JULY 8, 1998

     Article VII is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the 
following:

                                  ARTICLE VII

                                INDEMNIFICATION
                                ---------------

     The corporation shall indemnify its directors and officers, whether serving
the corporation or at its request any other entity, to the full extent required 
or permitted by the Georgia Business Corporation Code now in force, including 
the advance of expenses to the full extent permitted by law. The foregoing 
rights of indemnification shall not be exclusive of any other rights to which 
those seeking indemnification may be entitled. No amendment of the Articles of 
Incorporation or By-laws of the corporation or repeal of any of its provisions 
shall limit or eliminate the right to indemnification provided hereunder with 
respect to acts or omissions occurring prior to such amendment or repeal. For 
purposes of this Article VII, reference to "the corporation" shall be defined in
Section 14-2-850 O.C.G.A. The indemnification and advancement of expenses 
provided by or granted pursuant to this Article VII shall, unless otherwise 
provided when a director's term is terminated, continue as to a person who has 
ceased to be a director, and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors
and administrator of such a person.
Exhibit
31.1
  Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 I, Larry D.
Wilcox, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UC HUB Group, Inc.,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant
and I have:
 
 a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my 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;
 
 c) disclosed
in this report any change in Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) all
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Registrant'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 Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  DATE:
      March 21, 2008
            
            /s/ Larry D.
      WilcoxLarry
      D. Wilcox
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer & Principal Financial
  Officer)