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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of American Healthcare Providers, Inc. (“American Healthcare”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by American Healthcare, and by others, in press releases concerning, among other things, a contract entered into by American Healthcare.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on Thursday, June 15, 2000 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on Wednesday, June 28, 2000.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15488 Filed 6-15-00; 1:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
[Civ. No. 2009.

Fourth Appellate District.

June 17, 1937.]

#### SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF SAN DIEGO (a Corporation), Respondent, v. F. V. BROWN, Appellant.

Arthur P. H. Wright for Appellant.

Bindley & Higgins for Respondent.

MARKS, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment upon a promissory note signed by Joe Stubbs, Jr., and P. V. Brown, *422payable to plaintiff. The sole ground urged by Brown for a reversal of the judgment against him is lack of consideration on his part.

In December, 1932, F. V. Brown purchased from Joe Stubbs, Jr., stock in the Stubbs Motor Corporation. On December 12, 1932, Brown executed and delivered to Stubbs his promissory note in the principal sum of $6,265.75, payable December 12, 1933, and secured by a pledge of stock in the Stubbs Motor Corporation. Early in 1933 Stubbs was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of about $3,340. He pledged the Brown note and Stubbs Motor Corporation stock as collateral security for his note. About August 12, 1933, Brown desired to pay his note and secure possession of the pledged stock. After some negotiations the following transaction was consummated on August 17, 1933: Stubbs and Brown executed a joint note in the sum of $3,340, which replaced the former note of Stubbs secured by the collateral already mentioned. Brown paid the full amount of principal and accrued interest on his promissory note and received the note and stock. The amount paid by Brown was deposited to Stubbs’ account and by him withdrawn. The note was renewed about seven times by Brown and Stubbs before this suit was filed.

A mere statement of the foregoing facts demonstrates that Brown received ample consideration for his signature of the Stubbs note on August 17, 1933. By paying his note before maturity he saved almost four months’ interest and received immediate possession of the pledged corporate stock. He secured an additional period of credit for Stubbs. Plaintiff surrendered collateral held by it and substituted the unsecured note of Stubbs and Brown for the secured note of Stubbs. It also extended the Stubbs loan. Such facts have always been held sufficient consideration to support the promise of an accommodation maker of a promissory note. (Sec. 1605, Civ. Code; *Humboldt Sav. & L. Soc.*v. *Dowd,*137 Cal. 408 [70 Pac. 274]; *Creamery Package Mfg. Co.*v. *Bennett,*48 Cal. App. 706 [192 Pac. 328] ; *Yankelewitch*v. *Beach,*115 Cal. App. 629 [2 Pac. (2d) 498].)

Judgment affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

*423A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 16, 1937.
#### THE NATIONAL STATE BANK OF TROY, Respondent, v. CHARLES H. RISING, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

*Alteration of note—ratification of try indorser—evidence—Appeal from*judgment— *when questions of fact not considered on.*

An action may be maintained against an indorser of a note, who ratifies and promises to pay the same, with full knowledge of the fact that the same has, subsequent to his indorsement thereof, been altered by adding thereto the words “with interest.” *(Commercial Bank v. Warren,*15 N. Y., 577; *Huntington v. Ballou,*2 Lans., 120; *Greenfield Bank v. Crafts,*4 Allen, 447; *Hazard v. Spears,*2 Abb. Ct. of App. Cases, 353.)

Upon the trial of such an action, evidence tending to show that .the words “ with interest ” were or were not written at the same time, and with the same pen and ink, is admissible. *(Dubois v. Baker,*30 N. Y., 355.)

Upon an appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury, where no motion for a new trial has been made, no question of fact will be considered. (4 Wait’s Sup. Ot. Pr., 295.)

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

*C. F.*Tabor, for the appellant.

*Esek Cowen,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.

Present—- Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 102-42.135 Whose approval must be obtained before a foreign gift or decoration is offered for public sale?

The Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee must approve any sale of foreign gifts or decorations (except sale of foreign gifts to the employee, that is approved in this part).
EXHIBIT  32.2


CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO  RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1350,  AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In  connection  with  the  annual  report  of  Sharp  Holding  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Sharp,  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Sec.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that:

     (1)  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and
     (2)  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  information  contained  in  the Report
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the Company.

Date: April  14,  2005

/S/  GEORGE  SHARP
------------------
GEORGE  SHARP
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SHARP HOLDING CORPORATION
**Sample Evaluator Assessment Form**

*Reviewer Notes*

***Describe strengths -***

***Describe weaknesses* -**

***Overall impressions -***

2
#### § 102-39.80 What are the accounting requirements for exchange allowances or proceeds of sale?

You must account for exchange allowances or proceeds of sale in accordance with the general finance and accounting rules applicable to you. Except as otherwise authorized by law, all exchange allowances or proceeds of sale under this part will be available during the fiscal year in which the property was exchanged or sold and for one fiscal year thereafter for the purchase of replacement property. Any proceeds of sale not applied to replacement purchases during this time must be deposited in the United States Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Under no circumstances will deviations be granted for this section.

[73 FR 50881, Aug. 29, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 24820, May 6, 2010; 88 FR 25511, Apr. 27, 2023]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**689 TP 13-02235** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF BEATRICE L. CORCORAN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NIRAV R. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENT.

DESMARTEAU & BEALE, ROCHESTER (GEORGE DESMARTEAU OF COUNSEL), FOR
PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [John J. Ark, J.], entered December 18, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination, among other things, imposed an 18- month delay in petitioner’s Medicaid eligibility.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination that an 18-month delay in her Medicaid eligibility was properly imposed as a penalty for transferring resources in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage. We confirm the determination. Where a petitioner has transferred assets for less than fair market value, he or she must “rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by . . . anticipation of future need to qualify for medical assistance” ( Matter of Mallery v Shah , 93 AD3d 936, 937 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Donvito v Shah , 108 AD3d 1196, 1198). Here, the New York State Department of Health determined that, during the 60-month look-back period, petitioner and her husband made uncompensated transfers of approximately $176,000 to their family members. The evidence presented at the hearing established that petitioner had mobility issues for several years prior to her hospitalization and application for Medicaid, and petitioner failed to submit any medical records to support the allegation that she was in good health. Furthermore, petitioner failed to establish that the transfers were “part of a long-standing pattern,” inasmuch as she presented no evidence that substantial gifts such as the uncompensated**-2- 689 TP 13-02235** 

transfers at issue were made in prior years ( see Matter of Lipkin v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.

, 146 AD2d 964, 964-965). Thus, contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that the transfers were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to qualify for Medicaid ( see Matter of Barbato v New York State Dept. of Health , 65 AD3d 821, 822-823, lv denied 13 NY3d 712).

Entered: June 20, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
February 10, 1977



### Federal Register Act—Date of “Promulgation” of
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Regulations

Under the provisions of Section 521(d) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by § 127 of Pub. L. 94-503, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3769d (Supp. 1976), the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is required to “promulgate” regulations on processing of civil rights complaints within 120 days after enactment (October 15, 1976). The question has been raised whether, as a matter of law, “promulgation” takes place at the time of publication in the Federal Register or at the time of filing at the Office of the Federal Register. In our opinion, it is clear that promulgation takes place when documents are officially filed at the Office of the Federal Register regardless of when they are published. The Federal Register Act provides for formal filing of regulations that are required to be published and the noting of the time and date of filing. Upon filing, regulations are immediately available for public inspection. 44 U.S.C. § 1503. The Act further provides that filing with the Federal Register is constructive notice to persons subject to or affected by the regulation. 44 U.S.C. § 1507. Thus, under the terms ofthe statute, it seems clear that filing with the Federal Register constitutes promulgation of a regulation even though publication may not

occur until a later date. See 38 Op. A.G. 359 (1935).

M a r y C. L a w t o n Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel 

### 77-6 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

12
§ 102-117.225 What is the difference between a contract or a rate tender and a commuted rate system? ( a ) Under a contract or a rate tender, the agency prepares the bill of lading and books the shipment. The agency is the shipper and pays the TSP the applicable charges. If loss or damage occurs, the agency may either file a claim on behalf of the employee directly with the TSP, or help the employee in filing a claim against the TSP.
( b ) Under the commuted rate system an employee arranges for shipping HHG and is reimbursed by the agency for the resulting costs. Use this method only within the continental United States (not Hawaii or Alaska).
( c ) Rate table information and the commuted rate schedule can be found at *www.gsa.gov/relocationpolicy* or the appropriate office designated in your agency.
[65 FR 60061, Oct. 6, 2000, as amended at 78 FR 75485, Dec. 12, 2013]
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 611

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow self-employed

individuals to deduct the full cost of their health insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. WEYGAND (for himself, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana,

Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr.

BOUCHER, Mr. SANDERS, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow selfemployed individuals to deduct the full cost of their

health insurance.

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 ‘‘Small Business Own5 ers’ Health Insurance Deductibility Act’’.
2

•HR 611 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS FOR

2 SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 162(l)

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read

5 as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case

7 of an individual who is an employee within the

8 meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shall be allowed

9 as a deduction under this section 100 percent of the

10 amount paid during the taxable year for insurance

11 which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer, his

12 spouse, and dependents.’’

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

14 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

15 December 31, 1998.

Æ
§ 334.10 Gulf of Maine off Seal Island, Maine; naval aircraft bombing target area. ( a ) *The danger zone.* A circular area with a radius of 1.5 nautical miles, having its center just easterly of Seal Island at latitude 43°53′00′′ and longitude 68°44′00′′.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) No aerial bombing practice will take place in the danger zone after 5:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, at any time on Sundays, or during foggy or inclement weather.
( 2 ) Vessels or other watercraft will be allowed to enter the danger zone any time there are no aerial bombing exercises being conducted.
( 3 ) No live ammunition or explosives will be dropped in the area.
( 4 ) Suitable Notice to Mariners, by appropriate methods, will be issued by the Commander, First Coast Guard District, Boston, Massachusetts; upon request of the Commandant, First Naval District, Boston, Massachusetts, or his designated agent.
( 5 ) Prior to the conducting of each bombing practice, the area will be patrolled by a naval aircraft or surface vessel to ensure that no persons or watercraft are within the danger zone. Vessels may be requested to veer off when drops are to be made, however, drops will be made only when the area is clear. The patrol aircraft will employ the method of warning known as “buzzing” which consists of low flight by the airplane and repeated opening and closing of the throttle.
( 6 ) Any such watercraft shall, upon being so warned, immediately leave the designated area and, until the conclusion of the practice, shall remain at such distance that it will be safe from falling projectiles.
( 7 ) The regulations of this section shall be enforced by the Commandant, First Naval District, Boston, Massachusetts, or such agencies as he may designate.
[24 FR 7379, Sept. 12, 1959. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, as amended at 62 FR 17551, Apr. 10, 1997]
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate of the Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

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

In connection with the annual report of World Color Press Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Angelson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
March 1st 2010



/s/Mark A. AngelsonMark A. Angelson
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38572-38573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15609]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-030-2000-1060-JJ]


Notice of Intent to Remove Stray Wild Horses

SUMMARY: The Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (Pub. L. 92-95) 
requires that, among other things, horses that exceed the Appropriate 
Management Levels (AMLs) established for them or stray from designated 
Herd Management Areas (HMAs) be removed. In order to accomplish that, 
the Rawlins and Lander Field Offices of the Bureau

[[Page 38573]]

of Land Management plan to remove 500-600 excess and stray horses from 
three contiguous areas of the Rawlins and Lander Field Offices known as 
the Lost Creek HMA, an area designated as I-80 North, and the Antelope 
Hills HMA. The horses in I-80 North have strayed from the nearby 
Stewart Creek and Lost Creek HMAs over a period of time. The area known 
as I-80 North contains a large (greater than 50%) percentage of private 
land. The removal is scheduled to begin after September 30, 2000, and 
conclude prior to January 1, 2001. The Appropriate Management Level for 
these three contiguous areas is 140. At least 140 horses will remain in 
the area after the removal is completed.
    Wild Horse populations in the nearby Stewart Creek, Green Mountain, 
and Crooks Mountain HMAs will not be directly affected by this removal 
and will remain above the AMLs established for them.
    Numbers presented are approximate and will be finalized by a 
supplemental census to be conducted during August/September 2000 in the 
removal area and other, nearby HMAs.
    A detailed Gather Plan, Environmental Analysis (EA), and Record of 
Decision for this removal are available on request from: Chuck Reed, 
Resource Advisor, P.O. Box 2047, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301; (307) 328-
4213; or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da99b2afb9b18588bfbfbe9ab8b6b7f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fdcf7eafcf4c0cdfafafbdffdf3f2b1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    These documents are also available for review on the Wyoming BLM 
homepage at www.wy.blm.gov.
    This removal action represents continued implementation of 
decisions previously communicated through Decision Records WY-037-EA4-
121/122, dated July 11, 1994; WY-030-EA0-038 dated January 10, 2000; 
and WY-030-EA0-037 dated February 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information please contact 
the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office, 1300 North Third 
Street, P.O. Box 2407, Rawlins, WY 82301, (307) 328-4200.

Kurt J. Kotter,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-15609 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 Page 2 of 2