alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1626.19 Filing of Commission lawsuit.

The right of the Commission to file a civil action under the ADEA is not dependent on the filing of a charge and is not affected by the issuance of a Notice of Dismissal or Termination to any aggrieved person.

[68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003]
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Sedona Worldwide  Incorporated  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Mia A.
Martori,  President of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/ Mia A. Martori
-----------------------------
Mia A. Martori
President
August 8, 2002


/s/ Margaret M. Eardley
-----------------------------
Margaret M. Eardley
Acting Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2002
June 19, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL LEE THOM , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00973

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________ ____________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decisio n certified below for observance.
§ 49.1 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to the recording of certain conveyances affecting title to, or any interest in— ( 1 ) Any aircraft registered under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44104;
( 2 ) Any specifically identified aircraft engine of 550 or more rated takeoff horsepower, or the equivalent of that horsepower;
( 3 ) Any specifically identified aircraft propeller able to absorb 750 or more rated takeoff shaft horsepower; and
( 4 ) Any aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance maintained by or for an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 44705, for installation or use in an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller, or any spare part, maintained at a designated location or locations by or for such an air carrier.
( b ) Subpart B of this part governs, where applicable by its terms, conveyances subject to this part.
[Doc. No. 1996, 29 FR 6486, May 19, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 49-10, 70 FR 246, Jan. 3, 2005; Amdt. No. 49-11, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4859 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

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.

    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 ``Connected Maternal Online Monitoring 
Act'' or the ``Connected MOM Act''.

SEC. 2. CMS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING CHRONIC DISEASE AND IMPROVING 
              MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH OUTCOMES USING REMOTE 
              PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING DEVICES AND EXPANDING COVERAGE OF 
              SUCH DEVICES AND RELATED SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
submit to Congress a report containing recommendations from the Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid Services for expanding coverage of remote 
physiologic devices and related services under Medicaid, including 
pulse oximeters, blood pressure cuffs, scales, and blood glucose 
monitors, with the goal of improving maternal and child health outcomes 
for pregnant and postpartum women enrolled in State Medicaid programs 
(including women with high risk pregnancies), improving access to, and 
the quality of, care for underserved and rural populations, and 
improving chronic disease management across populations.
    (b) Updates to State Resources.--Not later than 90 days after the 
submission of the report under subsection (a), the Administrator of the 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services shall update resources for 
State Medicaid programs, such as State Medicaid telehealth toolkits, 
consistent with the recommendations made by the report.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of theCompany**

**Thefollowing is a list of subsidiaries of the Company as of February 28,2006, omitting certain subsidiaries that, when considered in the aggregate as asingle subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary. Each of thefollowing subsidiaries does business under the name 24/7 Real Media, except forK.K. 24-7 Search and Dentsu 24/7 Holdings B.V., each of which doesbusiness under its respective name.**

| **Legal Name**                       | ** ** | **Law of  Incorporation or Organization** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
| 24/7 Real Media US, Inc.        |       | Delaware                                  |
| 24/7 Media Canada Holding Company    |       | Nova Scotia                               |
| 24/7 Real  Media, Inc.          |       | Ontario                                   |
| 24/7 Real Media Europe Holding S.A.  |       | Switzerland                               |
| 24/7 Real Media  France SARL         |       | France                                    |
| 24/7 Real Media  Germany GmbH        |       | Germany                                   |
| 24/7 Real Media  Italy S.r.L.        |       | Italy                                     |
| Real Media Spain  SA                 |       | Spain                                     |
| Real Media  Scandinavia              |       | Sweden                                    |
| 24/7 Real Media  Technology S.A.     |       | Switzerland                               |
| 24/7 Real Media  UK Ltd.             |       | United Kingdom                            |
| 24/7 Real Media, Inc.           |       | South Korea                               |
| Decide Holdings Pty Limited          |       | Australia                                 |
| 24-7 Real  Media Pty Limited         |       | Australia                                 |
| K.K. 24-7 Search (1)                 |       | Japan                                     |
| Dentsu 24/7 Search Holdings B.V. (2) |       | The Netherlands                           |

 

Except as notedabove, the voting stock of each subsidiary is wholly-owned by the Company or awholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

(1)          51.0% owned by theCompany and 49.0% owned by Dentsu, Inc., the Company’s joint venturepartner.

(2)          50.0% owned by theCompany and 50.0% owned by Dentsu, Inc., the Company’s joint venturepartner.

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for ***

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

WALLACE JOHN BEAR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30022

D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00064-SEH-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 2, 2009** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge. *** 

Wallace John Bear (“Bear”) appeals a life sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to second degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153(a). 

FILED

NOV 25 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we

affirm. 

Bear argues that in requesting the district court to impose a life sentence, the

government breached the parties’ written plea agreement. We disagree.

In the plea agreement, Bear and the government agreed that “[t]he United

States and the Defendant reserve all right, without condition, to make any

appropriate sentencing recommendation.” Because the terms of the plea agreement

were unambiguous and imposed no limitation on the government’s sentence

recommendation, the government did not breach the plea agreement when it argued

for a life sentence.

We also reject Bear’s argument that the government’s sentencing

recommendation rendered its promise to request a Sentencing Guidelines point

reduction illusory. Before imposing sentence, the district court, as required,

calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, which included downward

adjustments for Bear’s acceptance of responsibility and early plea as requested by

the government. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc) (noting that the starting point for determining an appropriate sentence is to

calculate the applicable Sentencing Guideline range). 
3

Finally, Bear argues that his life sentence is unreasonable. A sentencing

judge is in a superior position to make factual determinations and evaluate their

import under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679, 700

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir.

2008)), and only a procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence

will be set aside. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. Here, the district court adequately

considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and explained its reasons

for imposing the statutory maximum sentence of life in prison. Id. The district

court did not abuse its discretion, and the sentence is not unreasonable. See id.;

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

 AFFIRMED.
#### Ella L. Dunckel, App’lt, *v.*Ephraim Failing *et al.,*Executors, Resp’ts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

Promissory notes—When void for want of consideration.

One Harmon Dunckel obtained a policy of insurance on his life, payable to his mother, defendant’s testatrix, to whom he was indebted He died, and she received the insurance money. Dunckel had no property and owed plaintiff a certain sum. Plaintiff’s father, who acted for his daughter, applied to defendant’s testatrix telling her it was hard that plaintiff should lose the whole amount due her from Harmon, and thereupon defendant’s testatrix gave the note in suit payable after her death. *Held,*that the note was without consideration.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*D. S. Morrel,*for app’lt; *L. M. Weller,*for resp’ts.

Learned, P. J.

One Harmon Dunckel, about a year or so before his death, obtained a policy of insurance on his life, payable to Elizabeth Dunckel, his mother, defendant’s testatrix, to whom he was indebted. He died in 1879, and she received the insurance money, $2,-000, a few months afterwards. He had no property and was in debt. He owed the plaintiff $1,250, which she could not collect.

Peter A. Dunckel, father of plaintiff, says he was authorized to act for his daughter; that she made a claim against Elizabeth Dunckel (now deceased) for money due her; and that he told Elizabeth Dunckel it was hard for plaintiff to lose the whole amount; that Elizabeth said she would give a note of $550; that accordingly she gave the note in suit, dated May 30, 1884, for that amount, payable six months after her death, to plaintiff or bearer, with interest:

Some of the assessments on the policy of insurance were paid by Elizabeth. It does not appear how much was paid by Harmon.

It was held by the referee and by the learned justice'that the note was without consideration.

The plaintiff now insists that it was valid, because given in compromise of a disputed claim. So far as we can see, the learned justice was quite correct in saying that this was in fact only a claim on the good nature of Elizabeth. It is *375evident that there is nothing to compromise where there is no claim of legal obligation. And we fail to see any proof of any legal claim. No facts are shown on which to base sach-a claim. Harmon’s debt to plaintiff did not constitute a claim against Elizabeth. Something was argued of the wrong done to. Harmon’s creditors by his payment of premiums. There is no proof that he paid any. Some were unpaid at his death. Furthermore, as he owed Elizabeth, there seems to have been no fraud in his attempting to .secure her by this policy. It was a just and proper act in him to secure a creditor in this way. And that act furnished no ground of complaint, so far as we discover, on the part of another creditor.

We think that the judgment should be affirmed, with •costs.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concur.
§ 1910.212 General requirements for all machines. ( a ) *Machine guarding* — ( 1 ) *Types of guarding.* One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are—barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.
( 2 ) *General requirements for machine guards.* Guards shall be affixed to the machine where possible and secured elsewhere if for any reason attachment to the machine is not possible. The guard shall be such that it does not offer an accident hazard in itself.
( 3 ) *Point of operation guarding.* ( i ) Point of operation is the area on a machine where work is actually performed upon the material being processed.
( ii ) The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.
( iii ) Special handtools for placing and removing material shall be such as to permit easy handling of material without the operator placing a hand in the danger zone. Such tools shall not be in lieu of other guarding required by this section, but can only be used to supplement protection provided.
( iv ) The following are some of the machines which usually require point of operation guarding: ( a ) Guillotine cutters.
( b ) Shears.
( c ) Alligator shears.
( d ) Power presses.
( e ) Milling machines.
( f ) Power saws.
( g ) Jointers.
( h ) Portable power tools.
( i ) Forming rolls and calenders.
( 4 ) *Barrels, containers, and drums.* Revolving drums, barrels, and containers shall be guarded by an enclosure which is interlocked with the drive mechanism, so that the barrel, drum, or container cannot revolve unless the guard enclosure is in place.
( 5 ) *Exposure of blades.* When the periphery of the blades of a fan is less than seven (7) feet above the floor or working level, the blades shall be guarded. The guard shall have openings no larger than one-half (1 ⁄ 2) inch.
( b ) *Anchoring fixed machinery.* Machines designed for a fixed location shall be securely anchored to prevent walking or moving.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2416-000]


Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2000, pursuant to Section 205 of the 
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 824d and 18 CFR Part 35, Entergy 
Services, Inc. (ESI), tendered for filing a three-month (June 1, 2000 
through August 31, 2000) Transaction Agreement between Entergy Gulf 
States, Inc., (EGS), as seller, and ESI, as buyer, on behalf of those 
of the Entergy Operating Companies which have authority to enter into 
this Transaction Agreement (ESI and said Entergy Operating Companies 
collectively hereinafter referred to as ``Entergy'').
    Entergy requests waiver of the 60-day notice requirement of section 
35.3 of FERC's regulations, 18 CFR 35.3, to allow the Transaction 
Agreement to become effective June 1, 2000.
    Entergy has served a copy of this filing on its state and local 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 19, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12217 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Davel Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Date: November 14, 2002                       /s/ John D. Chichester
      -----------------              -------------------------------------------
                                     John D. Chichester, Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 14, 2002                        /s/Richard P. Kebert
      -----------------              -------------------------------------------
                                     Richard P. Kebert, Chief Financial Officer


                                       38
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 1.10 Severability.

The provisions of this part are separate and severable and operate independently from one another. If any provision of this part is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the provision is to be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision is severable from this part and will not affect the remaining provisions.

[88 FR 57728, Aug. 23, 2023]
<PAGE> 1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21


PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES

     The Company and its subsidiaries* as of July 3, 1998 are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        State (Country) of         Percentage of Voting
Name of Company                            Incorporation            Securities Owned
---------------                         ------------------         --------------------
<S>                                     <C>                                <C>
Kellwood Company                        Delaware                           Parent
American Recreation Products, Inc.      Delaware                            100%
Kellwood Asia Limited                   Hong Kong                           100%
Smart Shirts Limited                    Hong Kong                           100%
South Asia Garment Limited              Hong Kong                           100%
KWD Holdings, Inc.                      Delaware                            100%
Robert Scott & David Brooks
  Outlet Stores, Inc.                   Delaware                            100%
Tri-W Corporation                       North Carolina                      100%
Halmode Apparel, Inc.                   Delaware                            100%

<FN>
<F*> Some of the above subsidiaries also have subsidiaries which are not listed
because, in the aggregate, they are not considered to be significant.

</TABLE>

                                    -15-