alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 192 meeting to be held June 6, 2000, starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.

The agenda will be as follows: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) Overview and Coordination with Free Flight Select Committee; (3) Resolve Ballot Comments and Approve Working Group 1 Document (User Priorities for the National Airspace Redesign); (4) Review Working Group 2 Status; (5) Review Working Group 3 Status and Plenary Approval; (6) Review High-altitude Concept; (7) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (8) Closing.

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman,                           ( print page 31054)                        members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 (fax), or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.                

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2000.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 00-12167 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### § 102.108 Response to petition; service of response.

Any party to the representation or unfair labor practice case may, within 14 days after service, respond to the petition, admitting or denying its allegations. The response must be filed with the Board in Washington, DC. The response must be served on the General Counsel and all other parties, and a statement of service must be filed as provided by § 102.5(h).

[82 FR 11767, Feb. 24, 2017]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4859 

To require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make recommendations for improving maternal and child health outcomes using 

remote physiologic monitoring devices and expanding coverage of such 

devices under Medicaid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

to make recommendations for improving maternal and 

child health outcomes using remote physiologic monitoring devices and expanding coverage of such devices 

under Medicaid. 

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 ‘‘Connected Maternal 

5 Online Monitoring Act’’ or the ‘‘Connected MOM Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4859 IS

1 SEC. 2. CMS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING CHRONIC 

2 DISEASE AND IMPROVING MATERNAL AND 

3 CHILD HEALTH OUTCOMES USING REMOTE 

4 PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING DEVICES AND 

5 EXPANDING COVERAGE OF SUCH DEVICES 

6 AND RELATED SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 

9 Human Services shall submit to Congress a report con10 taining recommendations from the Centers for Medicare 

11 & Medicaid Services for expanding coverage of remote 

12 physiologic devices and related services under Medicaid, 

13 including pulse oximeters, blood pressure cuffs, scales, and 

14 blood glucose monitors, with the goal of improving mater15 nal and child health outcomes for pregnant and 

16 postpartum women enrolled in State Medicaid programs 

17 (including women with high risk pregnancies), improving 

18 access to, and the quality of, care for underserved and 

19 rural populations, and improving chronic disease manage20 ment across populations. 

21 (b) UPDATES TO STATE RESOURCES.—Not later 

22 than 90 days after the submission of the report under sub23 section (a), the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare 

24 & Medicaid services shall update resources for State MedVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:47 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4859.IS S4859

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4859 IS

1 icaid programs, such as State Medicaid telehealth toolkits, 

2 consistent with the recommendations made by the report. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas. The Administrator will assess applications for FAA-recognized identification areas and may require additional information or documentation, as needed, to supplement an application. The Administrator will approve or deny an application, and may take into consideration matters such as, but not limited to: ( a ) The existence of any FAA established flight or airspace restriction limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, such as special use airspace designations under part 73 of this chapter, temporary flight restrictions issued under part 91 of this chapter, or any other special flight rule, restriction or regulation in this chapter limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the interest of safety, efficiency, national security and/or homeland security, which overlaps with the proposed FAA-recognized identification area.
( b ) The safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft.
( c ) The safety and security of persons or property on the ground.
( d ) The need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification areas.
#### Dorothy J. Chaslon, Respondent, v Waldbaum, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[697 NYS2d 342]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Waldbaum, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 23,1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Waldbaum, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured at the appellant’s store when she reached for a bottle of detergent on a “display”, the bottle fell to the ground causing its contents to spill, which in turn caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, we find that there was no evidence that the subject display was defective. The appellant came forward with evidence that the subject display was not defective, and in response, the plaintiff failed to come forward with admissible evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, there was no evidence that any defect in the display was the cause of the bottle falling to the floor. Thus, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment *(cf, Chin v Harp Mktg.,*232 AD2d 601). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
[Civ. No. 1912.

First Appellate District.

January 11, 1917.]

#### SUNSET LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. GEORGE T. DUNLAP et al., Appellants.

Sale—Amount in Controversy—Jurisdiction op Superior Court.— The superior court has jurisdiction in an action brought therein to recover the sum oí $310.10, which the complaint alleged was t'he balance due of the sum of $506.10, the reasonable value of goods sold to the defendants, to render judgment for the amount prayed for, notwithstanding the complaint incidentally alleged that $250 had been paid on account of the $506.10, where the answer denied that the sum of $310.10 was due, and the case went to trial upon the issue thus raised.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. William H. Donahue, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Sterling Carr, and P. M. Bruner, for Appellants.

C. L. Colvin, for Respondent.

LENNON, P. J.

The plaintiff in this case commenced an action for the sum of $310.10, which the complaint alleged was the balance due of the sum of $506.10 alleged to be the reasonable value of goods sold to the defendants. The com*493plaint, however, incidentally alleged that the sum of $250 had been paid on account of the $506.10, followed by the above-mentioned allegation that there was a balance of $310.10-due and unpaid. The answer of one of the defendants denied-that there was any amount due, and the other denied that the sum of $310.10 was due. The case came on for trial upon the issues thus raised. The defendants did not appear, and judgment went for the plaintiff for the amount demanded.

The appeal is taken from the judgment, and the point is made that the trial court did not have jurisdiction of the action because the demand was for less than three hundred dollars.

While the allegations of the complaint taken in conjunction with the prayer for judgment created some ambiguity and uncertainty, the issue raised by' the answer of one of the defendants, and attempted to be raised by the other, was as to whether the sum of $310.10, the amount for which judgment was prayed, was due and owing. No demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the ground of uncertainty, and the issue before the court as above stated involved an amount within the jurisdiction of the court.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Richards, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors and Stockholders24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-118747, 333-112729, 333-111991, 333-109925, 333-108422,333-106252, 333-100583, 333-89985, 333-47074, and 333-34020)on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-122041, 333-100582, 333-87714,333-83287, 333-66995, 333-56308, and 333-35306) on Form S-8of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2007, relatedto the consolidated financial statements of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. as of December 31,2006 and 2005 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, and on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear inthe December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of 24/7 RealMedia, Inc.
|                    |   | /s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|               |   |                            |
| New York, NY       |   |                            |
| April 9, 2007 |   |                            |

 

----
Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<PAGE>

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

                      MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Parent                                        Subsidiary               Ownership        Organization
--------------------------------------------                 ----------               ---------        ------------
<S>                                                <C>                                   <C>              <C>
Midland Capital Holdings Corporation               Midland Federal Savings and Loan      100%             Federal
                                                            Association

Midland Federal Savings and Loan Association       Midland Service Corporation           100%             Illinois

Midland Service Corporation                        MS Insurance Agency, Inc.             100%             Illinois

Midland Service Corporation                        Bridgeview Development Company        100%             Illinois
</TABLE>

The financial statements of the Registrant are consolidated with those of its
subsidiary.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAD-13-0003586 

13-AUG-2014 

08:48 AM 

SCAD-13-0003586


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,


Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

CHRISTOPHER M. FUJIYAMA,


Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(ODC 13-031-9101)
 

ORDER OF SUSPENSION
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of 

the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of 

Hawai'i recommending this court suspend Respondent Christopher M. 

Fujiyama for two years and require him to bear the cost of the 

disciplinary proceedings, and upon review of the record, this 

court reaches the following findings and conclusions by clear and 

convincing evidence. 

Respondent Fujiyama did, in 2012, intentionally and 

knowingly traffic in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2320(a)(1), and is currently serving a three-year period of 
probation for that federal offense. Such conduct reflects 

adversely on Respondent Fujiyama’s honesty, trustworthiness, and 

fitness as a lawyer, and is conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rules 8.4(b) and 

8.4(c) of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (1994). In 

aggravation, we find Respondent Fujiyama acted with a dishonest 

or selfish motive and engaged in a pattern of misconduct which 

injured the corporate owners of the rightful trademarks. In 

mitigation, we note his previously clean disciplinary record, his 

timely, good-faith effort at restitution, his cooperative 

attitude with federal investigators, his full disclosure to the 

Disciplinary Board, his cooperative attitude toward the 

disciplinary proceedings, the other penalties imposed upon him 

for his conduct, including a six-month home detention during nonworking hours and full payment of a $20,000.00 fine, the support 

he received from 19 individuals attesting to his character, and 

his expressions of genuine remorse. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Fujiyama is 

suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a 

period of two years, effective 30 days after the date of entry of 

this order, as provided by Rules 2.3(a)(2), 2.13(d), and 2.16(c) 

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other
 

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the
 

2
 
Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Fujiyama shall 

pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely 

submission of a bill of costs, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Fujiyama shall,
 

within ten days after the effective date of his suspension, file
 

with this court an affidavit that he is in full compliance with
 

RSCH Rule 2.16(d).
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 13, 2014. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,073,706
<SECURITIES>                                12,706,040
<RECEIVABLES>                                  282,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,533
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,747,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          857,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,889,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,747,016
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               627,110
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                567,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                   567,808
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            567,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   567,808
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 10.5 Minimum wage for Federal contractors and subcontractors. ( a ) *General.* Pursuant to Executive Order 13658, the minimum hourly wage rate required to be paid to workers performing on or in connection with covered contracts with the Federal Government is at least: ( 1 ) $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015; and
( 2 ) Beginning January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, an amount determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 2 of Executive Order 13658. In accordance with section 2 of the Order, the Secretary will determine the applicable minimum wage rate to be paid to workers on covered contracts on an annual basis beginning at least 90 days before any new minimum wage is to take effect.
( b ) *Method for determining the applicable Executive Order minimum wage for workers.* The minimum wage to be paid to workers, including workers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(c), in the performance of a covered contract shall be at least: ( 1 ) $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015; and
( 2 ) An amount determined by the Secretary, beginning January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter. The applicable minimum wage determined for each calendar year by the Secretary shall be: ( i ) Not less than the amount in effect on the date of such determination;
( ii ) Increased from such amount by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (United States city average, all items, not seasonally adjusted), or its successor publication, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and
( iii ) Rounded to the nearest multiple of $0.05. In calculating the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for purposes of this section, the Secretary shall compare such Consumer Price Index for the most recent year available with the Consumer Price Index for the preceding year.
( c ) *Relation to other laws.* Nothing in the Executive Order or this part shall excuse noncompliance with any applicable Federal or State prevailing wage law or any applicable law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under the Executive Order and this part. A covered contract that is entered into on or after January 30, 2022, or that is renewed or extended (pursuant to an option or otherwise) on or after January 30, 2022, is generally subject to the higher minimum wage rate established by Executive Order 14026 of April 27, 2021, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors,” and its regulations at 29 CFR part 23.
[79 FR 60721, Oct. 7, 2014, as amended at 86 FR 67224, Nov. 24, 2021]
#### Carrie Robinson, Respondent, *v.*Cruikshank Holding Corporation, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Submitted December 2, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*476
      *David M. Engelson*and *Hyman M. Resnick*for appellant.

*Harry E. Kreindler*and *Philip A. Levey*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Hubbs and Crouch, JJ.
SERVED MAY 14, 012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MIDWEST JET CHARTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0029 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

AND ACCEPTING ANSWER 

The basis for the· Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Limit the Issues at Hearingto Sanction 

("Motion") of April10, 2012 filed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") was the asserted failure of Respondent Midwest Jet Charter, Inc. 

("Respondent") to file a timely Answer to Complainant's Complaint. An Order to Show 

Cause ("OSC") was issued under date of April27, 2012, directing Respondent to file an 

Answer by May 11,2012, or risk sanctions. 

Respondent on May 11, 2012, responded· to the 0 SC and submitted a purported 

Answer. Respondent has adequately explained why it initially failed to file an Answer. 

Respondent's submission also substantively addresses the Complaint's allegations. 

It is found and concluded that Respondent has submitted a proper Answer to 

Complainant's Complaint. 

In view of the foregoing, it is ordered as follows: 
2 

1 - Respondent's submission is hereby ACCEPTED for filing as its Answer; 

2- The Order to Show Cause is hereby VACATED; and 

3 -Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Limit the Issues 

at Hearing to Sanction is hereby DENIED. 

e.Ju.Q • / 

'l 

J 

0, ~ ~ Richard C. Goodwin · 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

·- v 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Tim Lodes 

Director of Human Resources 

Midwest Jet Charter, Inc. 

4216 Dewitt Avenue 

Mattoon, IL 6193 8 

TEL: 217-236-7102 

FAJ(: 217-235-0573 

ONE COPY 

Briana Martino, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AGL-7 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAJ(: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0029 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.