alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12008E069 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E069

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE V: AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE - Chapter 1: General provisions - Article 69 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0074 - 0074 *

Article 69

National Parliaments ensure that the proposals and legislative initiatives submitted under Chapters 4 and 5 comply with the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Fonseca 

From: Doug DeRose <dderose@ntma.org> 

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 10:39 AM 

To: Jonathan Fonseca 

Cc: 'Kim D. Holzhauer' 

Subject: RE: CFASE Draft Final Audit Report (DFAR) dated 10/22/2020 

Jonathan

No, we will not.

Doug DeRose | Vice President/CFO | 

National Tooling & Machining Association | NTMA| 

*1357 Rockside Rd* | Cleveland, OH 44134 | 

| TF.800.248.6862|* * 

dderose@ntma.org | www.ntma.org 

CONNECTED AND BACK TO WORK

From: Jonathan Fonseca [mailto:JFonseca@fec.gov]  

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 9:37 AM

To: Doug DeRose <dderose@ntma.org>

Subject: RE: CFASE Draft Final Audit Report (DFAR) dated 10/22/2020  

Good morning Mr. DeRose, 

Thank you for your email regarding the Draft Final Audit Report hearing request. Will the committee file a narrative response 

to the DFAR today? 

Regards, 

Jonathan Fonseca 

Auditor 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

1050 First St., NE 

Washington D.C. 20463 

1-202-694-1198 

This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If this email has been 

received in error, please notify the sender immediately at (202) 694-1198, or by reply email, and delete the message without copying or 

disclosing its contents. Thank you. 

From: Doug DeRose [mailto:dderose@ntma.org]  

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 10:24 AM

1 
       

 

To: Audit <audit@fec.gov>

Cc: Erica Lee <elee@fec.gov>; 'Kim D. Holzhauer' <kim.holzhauer@ahpplc.com>

Subject: CFASE Draft Final Audit Report (DFAR) dated 10/22/2020  

Importance: High

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, dated October 22, 2020, the Committee’s request is for a waiver of a 

hearing. Please let me know if anything else is required from the Committee at this point. 

Thank you. 

Doug DeRose | Vice President/CFO | 

National Tooling & Machining Association | NTMA| 

*1357 Rockside Rd* | Cleveland, OH 44134 | 

| TF.800.248.6862|* * 

dderose@ntma.org | www.ntma.org 

CONNECTED AND BACK TO WORK

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as 

spam. 

2
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, George M. Lee, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MetroCorp Bancshares, 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 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 officers 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 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; andc)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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 control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ George M. LeeGeorge M. LeeChief Executive Officer
NO. 12-09-00416-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANDREA TURZA AND

PATRICIA TURZA, ' APPEAL FROM THE 

APPELLANTS

V. ' COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 

JASON CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY

AND JASON CAMPBELL CUSTOM ' OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

HOMES, INC.,

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellants, Andrea Turza and Patricia Turza, have filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal. In their motion, they state that they no longer wish to pursue the appeal. Because 

Appellants have met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), 

the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

Opinion delivered December 16, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         565,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,812
<INVENTORY>                                      7,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               639,511
<PP&E>                                         160,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 976,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                     812,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   976,069
<SALES>                                         94,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,357
<CGS>                                           37,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,166)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,516)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (21,449)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
        

</TABLE>
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 annual report of R&R Acquisition VIII, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: September 27, 2011





/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw.


Kirk M. Warshaw


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 160.408 Factors considered in determining the amount of a civil money penalty. In determining the amount of any civil money penalty, the Secretary will consider the following factors, which may be mitigating or aggravating as appropriate: ( a ) The nature and extent of the violation, consideration of which may include but is not limited to: ( 1 ) The number of individuals affected; and
( 2 ) The time period during which the violation occurred;
( b ) The nature and extent of the harm resulting from the violation, consideration of which may include but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Whether the violation caused physical harm;
( 2 ) Whether the violation resulted in financial harm;
( 3 ) Whether the violation resulted in harm to an individual's reputation; and
( 4 ) Whether the violation hindered an individual's ability to obtain health care;
( c ) The history of prior compliance with the administrative simplification provisions, including violations, by the covered entity or business associate, consideration of which may include but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Whether the current violation is the same or similar to previous indications of noncompliance;
( 2 ) Whether and to what extent the covered entity or business associate has attempted to correct previous indications of noncompliance;
( 3 ) How the covered entity or business associate has responded to technical assistance from the Secretary provided in the context of a compliance effort; and
( 4 ) How the covered entity or business associate has responded to prior complaints;
( d ) The financial condition of the covered entity or business associate, consideration of which may include but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Whether the covered entity or business associate had financial difficulties that affected its ability to comply;
( 2 ) Whether the imposition of a civil money penalty would jeopardize the ability of the covered entity or business associate to continue to provide, or to pay for, health care; and
( 3 ) The size of the covered entity or business associate; and
( e ) Such other matters as justice may require.
[78 FR 5691, Jan. 25, 2013]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7327

WILSON ATKINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; KENNETH D. MCKELLAR,

Deputy Regional Administrator, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; KENNETH WOODINGTON,

Employee, Headquarters, South Carolina Department of Corrections; WILLIAM H. DAVIS, Warden,

Evans Correctional Institution; L. J. ALLEN,

Regional Administrator; WILLIAM CATOE, Deputy

Commissioner of Operations; GASTON FAIREY,

Attorney for "Nelson" Decree; JOHN SHUPPER,

Plaintiff Monitor for "Nelson" Decree,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-94-2236-3-19-BC)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Wilson Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Llewellyn Pope, POPE &

RODGERS, Columbia, South Carolina; John Christopher Mills, FAIREY,

PARISE & MILLS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkinson

v. Evatt, No. CA-94-2236-3-19-BC (D.S.C. July 27, 1995). 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
§ 156.295 Prescription drug distribution and cost reporting by QHP issuers. ( a ) *General requirement.* In a form, manner, and at such times specified by HHS, a QHP issuer that administers a prescription drug benefit without the use of a pharmacy benefit manager must provide to HHS the following information: ( 1 ) The percentage of all prescriptions that were provided under the QHP through retail pharmacies compared to mail order pharmacies, and the percentage of prescriptions for which a generic drug was available and dispensed compared to all drugs dispensed;
( 2 ) The aggregate amount, and the type of rebates, discounts or price concessions (excluding bona fide service fees) that the QHP issuer negotiates that are attributable to patient utilization under the QHP, and the aggregate amount of the rebates, discounts, or price concessions that are passed through to the QHP issuer, and the total number of prescriptions that were dispensed. ( i ) Bona fide service fees means fees paid by a manufacturer to an entity that represent fair market value for a bona fide, itemized service actually performed on behalf of the manufacturer that the manufacturer would otherwise perform (or contract for) in the absence of the service arrangement, and that are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or customer of an entity, whether or not the entity takes title to the drug.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Limitation on disclosure.* Information disclosed by a QHP issuer under this section shall not be disclosed by HHS, except that HHS may disclose the information in a form which does not disclose the identity of a specific QHP or prices charged for specific drugs, for the following purposes: ( 1 ) As HHS determines to be necessary to carry out section 1150A or part D of title XVIII of the Act;
( 2 ) To permit the Comptroller General to review the information provided;
( 3 ) To permit the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to review the information provided; or
( 4 ) To States to carry out section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act.
( c ) *Penalties.* A QHP issuer that fails to report the information described in paragraph (a) of this section to HHS on a timely basis or knowingly provides false information will be subject to the provisions of subsection (b)(3)(C) of section 1927 of the Act.
[77 FR 18469, Mar. 27, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 24292, May 5, 2021]
# EUR-Lex - 12004V092 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V092

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE IV — SOLIDARITY - Article II-92 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0048 - 0048 *

Article II-92

Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work

The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age, without prejudice to such rules as may be more favourable to young people and except for limited derogations.

Young people admitted to work must have working conditions appropriate to their age and be protected against economic exploitation and any work likely to harm their safety, health or physical, mental, moral or social development or to interfere with their education.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008M012 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M012

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE II: PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES - Article 12 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0021 - 0021 *

Article 12

National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:

(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;

(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty;

(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;

(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;

(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.

--------------------------------------------------
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 101 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human 

Services relating to ‘‘Designated Placement Requirements for LGBTQI 

plus Children’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mr. COTTON introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 

Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Designated 

Placement Requirements for LGBTQI plus Children’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Des5 ignated Placement Requirements for LGBTQI plus Chil6 dren’’ published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2024 

7 (89 Fed. Reg. 34818 et seq.), and such rule shall have 

8 no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7265** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr - 01044

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Raymond Edward Chestnut , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Florence, So uth Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court ’ s order s denying without prejudice his motion to correct the presentence investigation report and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Chestnut , No. 4:05

- cr 01044

- RBH

- 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 1 & Aug. 18, 2014). C hestnut’s motions for appointment of counsel and for preparation of a transcript at Government expense are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Presidential Documents

65369 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 216 

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2007–3 of October 16, 2006 

Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Brazil 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and the] Secretary of Defense 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C 

2291–4), I hereby certify, with respect to Brazil, that (1) interdiction of 

aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking 

in that country’s airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary threat 

posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; 

and (2) that country has appropriate procedures in place to protect against 

innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with 

such interdiction, which shall at a minimum include effective means to 

identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against 

the aircraft. 

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register and to notify the Congress of this determination. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, October 16, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9158 

Filed 11–7–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
#### § 1356.80 Scope of the National Youth in Transition Database.

The requirements of the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) §§ 1356.81 through 1356.86 of this part apply to the agency in any State, the District of Columbia, or Territory, that administers, or supervises the administration of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) under section 477 of the Social Security Act (the Act).

[73 FR 10365, Feb. 26, 2008]
#### § 152.33 Initial allocation of funds.

HHS will establish an initial ceiling for the amount of the $5 billion in Federal funds allocated for PCIPs in each State using a methodology consistent with that used to established allocations under the Children's Health Insurance Program, as set forth under 42 CFR part 457, subpart F, Payment to States.