alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 600.125 Budgeting, funding, and accounting. ( a ) Council grant activities are governed by 15 CFR part 14 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit and Commercial Organizations), 2 CFR part 230 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations), 15 CFR part 14 (Audit Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-Profit Organizations), and the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement.
( b ) Councils may not independently enter into agreements, including grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, whereby they will receive funds for services rendered. All such agreements must be approved and entered into by NOAA on behalf of the Councils.
( c ) Councils are not authorized to accept gifts or contributions directly. All such donations must be directed to the NMFS Regional Administrator in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce regulations.
[66 FR 57887, Nov. 19, 2001, as amended at 75 FR 59150, Sept. 27, 2010]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WAYNE GHENT, DOC #360644, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-950

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed July 27, 2018. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# EUR-Lex - 11957E062 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957E062

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, PART TWO - FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, TITLE III - FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL, CHAPTER 3: SERVICES, ARTICLE 62 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 62

SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS TREATY , MEMBER STATES SHALL NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW RESTRICTIONS ON THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES WHICH HAS IN FACT BEEN ATTAINED AT THE DATE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS TREATY .
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

JOSHUA MICHEAL RININGER

Debtor(s)

Case No. 16-24649

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Tom Vaughn, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the 

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

1) The case was filed on 08/01/2016.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was dismissed on 08/30/2016.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 2.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-24649 Doc 17 Filed 10/03/16 Entered 10/03/16 08:31:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-24649 Doc 17 Filed 10/03/16 Entered 10/03/16 08:31:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 10/03/2016

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By:/s/ Tom Vaughn

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-24649 Doc 17 Filed 10/03/16 Entered 10/03/16 08:31:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter   ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kyle Francis, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  June 20, 2011
By:
Kyle FrancisChief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.732 Eligibility and licensing requirements. ( a ) A license for a low power TV or TV translator station may be issued to any qualified individual, organized group of individuals, broadcast station licensee, or local civil governmental body.
( b ) More than one low power TV or TV translator station may be licensed to the same applicant whether or not such stations serve substantially the same area. Low power TV and TV translator stations are not counted for purposes of § 73.3555, concerning multiple ownership.
( c ) Only one channel will be assigned to each low power TV or TV translator station. Additional low power or translator stations may be authorized to provide additional reception. A separate application is required for each station and each application must be complete in all respects.
( d ) The FCC will not act on applications for new low power TV or TV translator stations, for changes in facilities of existing stations, or for changes in output channel tendered by displaced stations pursuant to § 73.3572(a)(1), when such changes will result in a major change until the applicable time for filing a petition to deny has passed pursuant to § 73.3584(c).
( e ) A proposal to change the primary TV station being retransmitted or an application of a licensed translator station to include low power TV station operation, *i.e.,* program origination will be subject only to a notification requirement.
( f ) Applications for transfer of ownership or control of a low power TV or TV translator station will be subject to petitions to deny.
( g ) - ( h ) [Reserved]
[47 FR 21499, May 18, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 21487, May 12, 1983; 49 FR 20504, May 15, 1984; 52 FR 7423, Mar. 11, 1987; 52 FR 10571, Apr. 2, 1987; 52 FR 31404, Aug. 20, 1987; 87 FR 58203, Sept. 23, 2022; 89 FR 7265, Feb. 1, 2024]
# EUR-Lex - 12003TN06/08 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12003TN06/08

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - Annex VI: List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Estonia - 8. Energy **

*
Official Journal L 236 , 23/09/2003 P. 0817 - 0817 *

8. ENERGY

1. 31968 L 0414: Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ L 308, 23.12.1968, p. 14), as last amended by:

- 31998 L 0093: Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14.12.1998 (OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 100).

By way of derogation from Article 1(1) of Directive 68/414/EEC, the minimum level of stocks of petroleum products shall not apply in Estonia until 31 December 2009. Estonia shall ensure that its minimum level of stocks of petroleum products corresponds, for each of the categories of petroleum products listed in Article 2, to at least the following number of days' average daily internal consumption as defined in Article 1(1):

- 10 days by the date of accession,

- 20 days by 31 December 2004,

- 35 days by 31 December 2005,

- 45 days by 31 December 2006,

- 50 days by 31 December 2007,

- 65 days by 31 December 2008,

- 90 days by 31 December 2009.

2. 31996 L 0092: Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20).

In Estonia, Article 19(2) of Directive 96/92/EC shall not apply until 31 December 2008.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1




EXHIBIT NO. 11.1                              COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
----------------                                                              

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31                                1996               1995               1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                       <C>                 <C>                 <C>       
Gross Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding           3,413,636           3,034,092           3,034,092

Weighted Average Treasury Shares Outstanding                  58,661              60,398              62,734
                                                          ----------          ----------          ----------

Net Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding             3,354,975           2,973,694           2,971,958
                                                          ==========          ==========          ==========

Net Income ($ in thousands)                               $    5,959          $    6,212          $    5,874
                                                          ==========          ==========          ==========

Net Income Per Common Share                               $     1.78          $     2.09          $     1.98
                                                          ==========          ==========          ==========
</TABLE>


                                       62
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7243
LORENZO BROADNAX, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus JOSEPH KAISER; DR. SELLERS; DR. ZEMMELL; DR. OFOGH, in his individual and official capacities; CAROLE F. WALLACE, in her individual and official capacities; FRED SCHILLINGS, Doctor in his individual and official capacities; DOCTOR KAULASKAS, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-46-1-LMB) Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 25, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Broadnax, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Everett Kuehn, Jennifer L. Sarvadi, LECLAIR RYAN, Alexandria, Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Broadnax appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Broadnax v. Kaiser , No. CA-04-46-1-LMB (E.D. Va. July 12, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 09-2324 PAT GODIN, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v. PATTY SCHENCKS, JOLEEN NICELY, and DONNA METTA,

Defendants, Appellants,

SCHOOL UNION #134 and MACHIASPORT SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on December 22, 2010 is amended as follows: On page 11, line 1, "Corp." is changed to "Corporation" On page 12, lines 11-12, "458 U.S. 263, 269 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted))" is changed to "458 U.S. 263, 269 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted)" On page 12, line 16, "(quotation mark" i s changed to "(internal quotation mark" At page 19, footnote 13, line 7, "See Walker, 446 U.S. at 751- 52." is changed to "See Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 751-52 (1980)." On page 23, line 18, the following footnote 18 is added at the end of the sentence. The remaining footnotes should be renumbered accordingly.
There may be a concern that Section 556, to the extent itmight be read to allow, contrary to Rule 56, a judge to

resolve a disputed material issue of fact, would then preclude a pa r t y from exercising its Seventh Amendment rights to tr i a l b y jury on disputed issues of material fact. Cf. Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Eng'g Co., 243 U .S. 273, 278 (1917) ( s u mm ary judgment does not violate Seventh Amendment). But Section 556 is a relatively young st a t u te, not much construed by the state courts, and there is no reason to think the state courts would constr u e S e ction 556 so as to be incompatible with the Seven t h Amendment. Although the Seventh Amendment has not b een incorporated against the states, Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 192 n.6 (1974), Maine's constitution itself provides that "[i]n all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties s h a l l have a right to a trial by jury, except in cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced." Me. Const
. a r t
. I , § 2 0
. T h i s p r o v i s i o n h a s " h i s t o r i c a lly been c o n s t r u e d a s g u a r a n t e e i n g t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l by jury in civil cases unless it is demonstrated that such a right did not exist at the t i m e of the adoption of [Maine's] Constitution." Smith v. Hawthorne, 89 2 A .2d 433, 444 (Me. 2006). We do note that the heightened pleading standard under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (P S L RA) does not violate the Seventh Amendment. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 327 & n.8 (2007).
§ 530.2 Ensuring that environmental documents are actually considered in agency decision-making. Section 1505.1 of the NEPA regulations contains requirements to ensure adequate consideration of environmental documents in agency decision-making. To implement these requirements, Commission officials shall: ( a ) Consider all relevant environmental documents in evaluating proposals for agency actions;
( b ) Ensure that all relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses accompany the proposal through existing agency review processes;
( c ) Consider only those alternatives encompassed by the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents when evaluating any proposal for action by the Commission which is likely to significantly affect the quality of the human environment; and
( d ) Where an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared, consider the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIS when evaluating the proposal which is the subject of the EIS. All Commission officials directly involved in developing, evaluating, and/or reaching decisions on proposed actions shall consider relevant environmental documents and comply with the applicable provisions of the NEPA process.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E230 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E230

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 4: The Court of Justice - Article 230 - Article 173 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 173 - EEC Treaty - **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0126 - 0126 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0272 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0062 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 4: The Court of Justice

Article 230

Article 173 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 173 - EEC Treaty

Article 230

The Court of Justice shall review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the ECB, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.

It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction under the same conditions in actions brought by the Court of Auditors and by the ECB for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives.

Any natural or legal person may, under the same conditions, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.

The proceedings provided for in this article shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0695 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-031-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 49 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions in this AD are intended to prevent failure of an RVDT control box 

assembly, loss of manual control of the engine throttle, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $8

Labor per Helicopter

(1.5 x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

(8 x $85/work-hour for the 

modification)

$128 per inspection cycle

$680

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $128 per inspection cycle

$688 for the modification

Total US Fleet Cost $6,272 per inspection cycle

$33,712 for the modification

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
**Other Research Projects**
-  *New Structure of Policing: Description, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda—Final Report,*  D.H. Bayley et al. Grant 98-IJ-CX-0017; NCJ 180773. More information can be found at:  http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/02.html . *Policing in Transition: Creating a Culture of Community Policing,*
R.L. Wood et al. Grant 96-IJ-CX-0068; NCJ 181043.  More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/04.html
.
*Justice in Indian Country: A Process Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Justice Initiative—Final Evaluation Report,*
 C.C. Lujan et al. Grant 96-IJ-CX-0097; NCJ 181048.  More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/09.html
.
*Evaluation of the South Carolina Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program for State Prisoners—Final Report,*
 W. Ruefle  et al. Grant 97-RT-VX-K015; NCJ 181050.  More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/11.html
.
*Developing a Partnership Between a University and a Police Department: The UBSOM-BPD Partnership Project,*
 R.G. Hunt et al. Grant 95-IJ-CX-0081. NCJ 181296.  More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/18.html
.
*Boston Police Department's Strategic Planning Process: Phase One, Final Report,*
 J. McDevitt et al. Grant 95-IJ-CX-0063; NCJ 181082. More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/16.html
.
*Educating the Public About the Police: The Lima PSA Project, Final Report,*
 M.B. Chamlin et al. Grant 95-IJ-CX-0055; NCJ 181083. More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/17.html
.
*Collaborative Intermediate Evaluation of the Pine Lodge Pre-Release Therapeutic Treatment Community for Women Offenders in Washington State,*
 C. Mosher et al. Grant 97-RT-VX-K014; NCJ 181406.  More information can be found at: 
http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1_2/20.html
.

PreviousMainNext
The NIJ Research Review - Volume 1, Issue 2 - May 2000