alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.771 Bronx River. ( a ) The draw of the Conrail Bridge, mile 1.6 at the Bronx, New York, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
( b ) The owners of the Conrail Bridge, mile 1.6, at the Bronx, New York, shall provide and keep in good legible condition two clearance gauges designed, installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter.
[CGD01-97-018, 62 FR 54385, Oct. 20, 1997, as amended by CGD01-99-070, 65 FR 45718, July 25, 2000; USCG-2019-0442, 84 FR 43045, Aug. 20, 2019]
# Request for Budget Revision

A Budget Revision occurs when a grantee requests to move more than 25% of the total approved budget (federal and non-federal funds) for a specific budget period between direct cost budget categories in an approved budget.  Once this threshold is reached, the recipient must request prior approval for all additional changes during that budget period.  

A grantee’s request for budget revision approval should be made in writing to the GMO no later than   30 days before the proposed change.

**Documents Required**

The required documents for a budget revision are: 

· A dated cover letter signed by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) that includes:

· Grant Award Number and Grantee Organization Name 

· A written justification stating the need for the budget revision 

· An SF-424A listing the proposed new budget category totals 

· A budget narrative/justification detailing the proposed charge allocations in each budget category

**How to Submit Your Request:**

All requests for Budget Revision should be submitted by the grantee in Grants Management Module as a new amendment by accessing “Manage Amendments”, click “New”, select “ACL Budget Revision     (Type 8)” and “Create Amendment”. 

GrantSolutions has a training video showing grantees how to request and manage grant amendments – which include no-cost extension requests.  This video is at the bottom of this page.”

Version 10.2018
----

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

Section 302 Certification of Principal Executive Officer 

I, Yanlin Han, certify that: 

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dragon Pharmaceutical Inc.; 

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 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 report; 

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 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

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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 significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting. 

|                               |                         |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Date:  November 14, 2008 | /s/ Yanlin Han          |
|                          | Yanlin Han              |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### § 785.33 General.

The principles which apply in determining whether or not time spent in travel is working time depend upon the kind of travel involved. The subject is discussed in §§ 785.35 to 785.41, which are preceded by a brief discussion in § 785.34 of the Portal-to-Portal Act as it applies to traveltime.
ACL/AoD Protection and Advocacy (PADD) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2020 Final Allocation

8/6/2020

State/Territory

OIDD Protection 

and Advocacy 

(PADD)

Alabama $506,385

Alaska $405,053

Arizona $772,586

Arkansas $405,053

California $4,016,299

Colorado $526,104

Connecticut $405,053

Delaware $405,053

District of Columbia $405,053

Florida $2,129,599

Georgia $1,089,023

Hawaii $405,053

Idaho $405,053

Illinois $1,273,116

Indiana $654,024

Iowa $405,053

Kansas $405,053

Kentucky $479,092

Louisiana $520,060

Maine $405,053

Maryland $574,503

Massachusetts $634,015

Michigan $1,000,882

Minnesota $529,842

Mississippi $418,958

Missouri $599,936

Montana $405,053

Nebraska $405,053

Nevada $405,053

New Hampshire $405,053

New Jersey $813,702

New Mexico $405,053

New York $1,936,843

North Carolina $1,077,316

North Dakota $405,053

Ohio $1,182,177

Oklahoma $410,755

Oregon $422,900

Pennsylvania $1,283,195

Rhode Island $405,053

South Carolina $500,233

South Dakota $405,053

Tennessee $665,837

Texas $2,884,459

Utah $405,053

Vermont $405,053

Virginia $783,876

Washington $752,938

West Virginia $405,053

Wisconsin $532,169

Wyoming $405,053

American Samoa $216,701

Guam $216,701

Northern Mariana Islands $216,701

Puerto Rico $811,723

Virgin Islands $216,701

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $216,701

TOTAL $39,777,218
Program Instructions

AoA-PI-01-03 January 8, 2001

TO: STATE AGENCIES ON AGING ADMINISTERING PLANS UNDER TITLE III OF THE OLDER 

AMERICANS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED

SUBJECT: Appropriations for Activities Related to Medication Management, Screening and Education

LEGAL AND RELATED REFERENCES: Section 361 of the Older Americans Act of 1965, As Amended 

(P.L. 106-501) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554) provided $1,103,135,000 for carrying out 

the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (P.L. 106-501), and section 398 of the Public Health 

Service Act. Of this amount, $5,000,000 was made available for activities regarding medication 

management, screening, and education to prevent incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions as 

a component of Title III, Part D, Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Services.

States are reminded that medication management, screening, and education to prevent incorrect 

medication and adverse drug reactions is included as one of the categories of service activities 

authorized under Title III, Part D of the Older Americans Act. Given the specific appropriation granted 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, States are instructed to ensure that an amount 

equivalent to this increase in funds from their total allotment for Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion Services is used for the purpose of providing activities related to medication management, 

screening, and education to prevent incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately

ATTACHMENTS: None

INQUIRIES: Address inquiries to Regional Administrators on Aging, DHHS Regional Offices.

____________________________________

Jeanette C. Takamura

Assistant Secretary for Aging
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.109a



                                   May 9, 2003

Lanny and Karen Kusaka
c/o Donn Morey
6167 Bristol Parkway
Culver City, CA 90230

RE: KUSAKA LOAN- TERM SHEET

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kusaka,

The following letter will confirm the terms of the loan (the  "Agreement") to be
made by you,  Lanny and Karen Kusaka  (hereinafter  the  "Lender"),  to Vertical
Computer  Systems,  Inc.  ("Vertical"),  and the warrants  issued by Vertical in
connection  therewith.  The Lender and  Vertical  hereby  confirm the  following
terms:

1.   The Lender shall loan Vertical  $15,000 in cash and Vertical  shall pay the
     Lender a commitment fee of $2,500 to the Lender.

2.   Vertical shall issue the Lender a promissory  note,  dated May 9, 2003 (the
     "Note"),  in a principal  amount of $17,500,  on June 9, 2003,  which shall
     include  the  commitment  fee of  $2,500.  If not  paid  to the  Lender  at
     maturity,  Vertical shall pay an additional  $250 penalty to the Lender for
     each day that the funds have not been paid.

3.   In connection with this agreement,  Vertical  pledges to the Lender $17,500
     from the proceeds of the first $35,000 of any distribution to Vertical from
     its subsidiary,  NOW Solutions,  LCC, in connection with the upcoming court
     hearing and motion by Vertical to get funds due to Vertical.

4.   Vertical shall issue to the Lender 5 year warrants to purchase an aggregate
     of 250,000 shares of the VCSY common stock at a strike price of $0.075 with
     "piggy back" registration rights.

This  Agreement  shall be  governed  by the law of the State of  California  and
subject to the jurisdiction and venue of the courts of Los Angeles,  California.
If the  foregoing  meets with the  Lender's  approval,  please sign in the space
provided below.

                                              Sincerely,


                                              ---------------------------
                                              Richard Wade, President/CEO
                                              Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.
ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY LENDER:
---------------------------
Lanny Kusaka
§ 147.1113 Platform GAIL safety zone. ( a ) *Description:* The area within a line 500 meters from each point on the structure's outer edge. The position of the center of the structure is 34°-07′-30′′ N, 119°-24′-01′′ W.
( b ) *Regulation:* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel,
( 2 ) a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing, or
( 3 ) a vessel authorized by the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CGD11-87-06, 52 FR 9657, Mar. 26, 1987]
# Background on the Olmstead Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 landmark decision in *Olmstead v. L.C.* (Olmstead) found the unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that individuals with disabilities must receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. This principle is central to the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision. 

The Olmstead decision fundamentally changed the way our country approaches disability rights and opened doors for millions of Americans to live the lives we want to live, in the community, alongside people of all ages, with and without disabilities.  

The Court held that states are required to provide community-based services for people with disabilities who would otherwise be entitled to institutional services when: (a) such placement is appropriate; (b) the affected person does not oppose such treatment; and (c) the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of other individuals with disabilities.

As a result of this court decision and enforcement activities, many individuals have transitioned from an institution to the community, and many individuals have avoided unnecessary institutionalization.  For example:

· Individuals who had been institutionalized for decades are now receiving services in their community;

· Individuals who lost their housing and/or community-based supportive services when they were forced to enter institutions due to an acute health care problem have had the needed services provided or restored;

· Individuals with disabilities are able to access home and community-based services through Medicaid "Waiver" programs;

· Increased hours of personal care and assistance are being provided to individuals who require additional services to remain in the community; and

· Individuals with disabilities now have greater control over their community-based care and services.

# For more details, visit: https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/community-living-and-olmstead/index.html. 

# image1.jpeg

# image2.png
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-336] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) to withdraw part of its December 14, 1999, application as supplemented February 11, March 30, and April 26, 2000, for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, located in Waterford, Connecticut. 

By letter dated April 28, 2000, we issued Amendment No. 245 approving the proposed changes with the exception of those changes related to technical specification (TS) Section 3.9.11, “Refueling Operations—Water Level—Reactor Vessel.” These proposed changes would have revised the terminology, applicability, surveillance requirements, and the associated action statement for TS Section 3.9.11, “Refueling Operations—Water Level—Reactor Vessel.” 

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 17, 2000 (65 FR 14632). However, by letter dated April 26, 2000, the licensee withdrew a portion of the amendment request.                 

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated December 14, 1999, as supplemented February 11, March 30, and April 26, 2000, and the licensee's letter dated April 26, 2000, which withdrew the portion of the application related to TS Section 3.9.11. The above documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00-13690 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
§ 133.13 Removal actions eligible for funding. To be eligible for funding under this part, each removal action must meet the following: ( a ) Must be for an incident, occurring after August 18, 1990, which resulted in a discharge, or the substantial threat of a discharge, of oil into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
( b ) Must comply with the National Contingency Plan.
( c ) Must be an immediate removal action.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21014]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The one item is open to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

8275C Pipeline Accident Report--Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline 
Rupture and Fire, San Bruno, California, September 9, 2010.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour 
prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, August 26, 2011.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63010a0d0400230d1710014d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa9893949d99ba948e8998d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 12, 2011.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-21014 Filed 8-12-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT - AOA SUPPLEMENTAL FORM TO SF-269-TITLE III

FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT OMB NO. 0985-0004

AOA SUPPLEMENTAL FORM TO SF-269-TITLE III Expires 08/31/2004

STATE______________ FY__________________

DATE SUBMITTED_____________________

REPORTING PERIOD 

ENDED________________

Item 10 i Column III, Total Recipient Share of Outlays which consist of outlays from:

State AAAs

ADMIN $____________________________ $________________________

Title III

Part B $____________________________ $________________________

LTCO (Part B) $____________________________ $________________________

Part C-1 $____________________________ $________________________

Part C-2 $____________________________ $________________________

Part D $____________________________ $________________________

Part E $____________________________ $________________________

TOTAL $____________________________ $________________________

Item 10 j Column III, Federal Share of Net Outlays:

State AAAs

ADMIN $____________________________ $________________________

Title III

Part B $____________________________ $________________________

LTCO (Part B) $____________________________ $________________________

Part C-1 $____________________________ $________________________

Part C-2 $____________________________ $________________________

Part D $____________________________ $________________________

Part E $____________________________ $________________________

TOTAL $____________________________ $________________________

Item 10 o Column III Total Federal Funds Authorized by AOA for the Federal FY__________ have been 

allocated by the State as follows (as applicable):

1. State administrative activities which consists of funds in the amount of $________________ from the 

following:

Part B $_______________________
Part C-1 $_______________________

Part C-2 $_______________________

Part D $_______________________

Part E $_______________________

2. Part B, Supportive 

Services $___________________

3. Part B, Long Term Care 

Ombudsman $___________________ FY'2000 $__________________

4. Part C-1, Congregate Meals $___________________

5. Part C-2, Home Delivered 

Meals $___________________

6. Part D, Preventive Health $___________________

7. Part E, Caregivers $___________________

Area Plan Administration $____________________

which consists of funds from:

Part B $_________________

Part C-1 $_________________

Part C-2 $_________________

Part E $_________________

Item 10 p Column III, Unobligated Funds:

Part B $____________________ Part D $____________________

Part C-1 $____________________ Part E $____________________

Part C-2 $____________________

Item 10 r Column III, Disbursed Program Income using the additional alternative (cumulative amount):

Part B $____________________ Part D $____________________

Part C-1 $____________________ Part E $____________________

Part C-2 $____________________
Argued and submitted September 2,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration October 14, 1992

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Kevin E. Pompe, Claimant. MORSE BROTHERS, INC. and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Petitioners, v.*Kevin E. POMPE, *Respondent.*

(WCB 91-02872; CA A73449)

838 P2d 82

Paul L. Roess, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

Karen M. Werner, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Emmons, Kropp, Kryger, Alexander, Egan & Allen, Albany.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *SAIF v. Herron,*114 Or App 64, 836 P2d 131 (1992).
(79 South. 143)

#### DANIELS v. STATE.

(8 Div. 568.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 11, 1918.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;1017 — Appeals—Jurisdiction.

Under Loc. Acts 1915, p. 383, § 7'%|, appeals may be made direct to Appellate Court from conviction of vagrancy in inferior criminal court of Madison county.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Madison County; J. W. B. Hawkins, Judge.

Carry Daniels was convicted of vagrancy, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State:

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of vagrancy in the inferior criminal court of Madison county, created by the act approved September 16, 1915. Section 7% of that act authorizes appeals direct to this court. Loc. Acts 1915, p. 383.

The appeal is on the record, without a bill of exceptions, and the proceedings and judgment of the court appear to be in all things regular.

Affirmed.
#### § 133.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes procedures for the Governor of a State to request payments from the Oil Spill Liability trust Fund (the Fund) for oil pollution removal costs under section 1012(d)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 2712(d)(1)).