alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 154.102 Definitions. As used in this part: *CMS* means the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
*Effective Rate Review Program* means a State program that CMS has determined meets the requirements set forth in § 154.301(a) and (b) for the relevant market segment in the State.
*Federal medical loss ratio standard* means the applicable medical loss ratio standard for the State and market segment involved, determined under subpart B of 45 CFR part 158.
*Health insurance coverage* has the meaning given the term in section 2791(b)(1) of the PHS Act.
*Health insurance issuer* has the meaning given the term in section 2791(b)(2) of the PHS Act.
*Individual market* has the meaning given the term in § 144.103 of this subchapter.
*Plan* has the meaning given the term in § 144.103 of this subchapter.
*Product* means a package of health insurance coverage benefits with a discrete set of rating and pricing methodologies offered in a State. The term product includes any product that is discontinued and newly filed within a 12-month period when the changes to the product meet the standards of § 147.106(e)(2) or (3) of this subchapter (relating to uniform modification of coverage).
*Rate increase* means, with respect to rates filed— ( 1 ) For coverage effective prior to January 1, 2017, any increase of the rates for a specific product offered in the individual or small group market.
( 2 ) For coverage effective on or after January 1, 2017, any increase of the rates for a specific product or plan within a product offered in the individual or small group market.
*Rate increase subject to review* means a rate increase that meets the criteria set forth in § 154.200.
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
*Small group market* has the meaning given the term in § 144.103 of this subchapter.
*State* means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
*Unreasonable rate increase* means: ( 1 ) When CMS is conducting the review required by this part, a rate increase that CMS determines under § 154.205 is: ( i ) An excessive rate increase;
( ii ) An unjustified rate increase; or
( iii ) An unfairly discriminatory rate increase.
( 2 ) When CMS adopts the determination of a State that has an Effective Rate Review Program, a rate increase that the State determines is excessive, unjustified, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise unreasonable as provided under applicable State law.
[76 FR 29985, May 23, 2011, as amended at 76 FR 54976, Sept. 6, 2011; 79 FR 30342, May 27, 2014; 80 FR 10863, Feb. 27, 2015; 81 FR 94175, Dec. 22, 2016]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO

REGIO 8

1595 WYNKOOP STREET

DE R, 0 80202~1129

Phone 800~227~8917

hUp:l/www.epa.gov/region08

DOCKET 0.: CAA-08-2011-0026

AGENCY

01 J 21 A 8: 5

TNTH~ MATT ~RO :

QEPEN ~R Y OMPA Y

Respondent

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORD R RANTlN !LIN

OFA AMENDED

CONSE TAG • M ·NT

A D FINAL ORDER

On June 25 _012 th Partie filed a "Joint Motion to Amend Administrative omplaint

nd ons nt gr ement". Th motion r qu ts appro I of a r vis d and amended App ndix /\

by adding Table A-5 which mov oure from Tables A-I - A-4. Th motion also re u sls the

addition ofseveral paragraphs as set forth in Attachment 1.

Th Re p ndent is her by RD RED to comply with aJl fthe terms ftheAm nded

Agr ement effectiv imm diately up n r eipl by R pond nt oItlll Am nd d on nt

Agre ment and Final Order.

o RDEREDTHl ay of....::....,~=.::....=~~ , 2012

Elyana R. Ll

Regional Judicial Officer
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned ecrtiDes utatthe origillOl "ftbe attached ORDER GRANTlNG

MOTION TO AMEND CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER in the matter of

QEI' ENERGY COMPANY.; DOCKET NO.: CAA-08-2011-0026, was med with the

Regional Hearing Clerk on June 27, 2012.

Further. lhe undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy aCthe document was

delivered to David Rochlin, Senior Enforcement Attorney, U. S. EPA - Region 8,1595

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. True and correct copies ofthe aforementioned

documents were placed in the United States Illuil and c-mailed on June 27. 2012, to:

Eric L. Dady

Vice-President & General Counsel

QEP Resources, Inc.

1050 17" Street, Suite 500

Denver, Co 80265

June 27, 2012 Juza.-a ~illnM Tina Artemis

ParalegallRegion.1 Hearing Clerk
#### § 2523.10 Are Federal agencies eligible to apply for AmeriCorps program funds?

Yes. Federal agencies may apply for and receive AmeriCorps funds under parts 2521 and 2522 of this chapter, and they are eligible to receive up to one-third of the funds available for competitive distribution under § 2521.30(b)(3) of this chapter. The Corporation may enter into a grant, contract or cooperative agreement with another Federal agency to support an AmeriCorps program carried out by the agency. The Corporation may transfer funds available to it to other Federal agencies.
§ 160.306 Complaints to the Secretary. ( a ) *Right to file a complaint.* A person who believes a covered entity or business associate is not complying with the administrative simplification provisions may file a complaint with the Secretary.
( b ) *Requirements for filing complaints.* Complaints under this section must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) A complaint must be filed in writing, either on paper or electronically.
( 2 ) A complaint must name the person that is the subject of the complaint and describe the acts or omissions believed to be in violation of the applicable administrative simplification provision(s).
( 3 ) A complaint must be filed within 180 days of when the complainant knew or should have known that the act or omission complained of occurred, unless this time limit is waived by the Secretary for good cause shown.
( 4 ) The Secretary may prescribe additional procedures for the filing of complaints, as well as the place and manner of filing, by notice in the Federal Register.
( c ) *Investigation.* ( 1 ) The Secretary will investigate any complaint filed under this section when a preliminary review of the facts indicates a possible violation due to willful neglect.
( 2 ) The Secretary may investigate any other complaint filed under this section.
( 3 ) An investigation under this section may include a review of the pertinent policies, procedures, or practices of the covered entity or business associate and of the circumstances regarding any alleged violation.
( 4 ) At the time of the initial written communication with the covered entity or business associate about the complaint, the Secretary will describe the acts and/or omissions that are the basis of the complaint.
[71 FR 8424, Feb. 16, 2006, as amended at 78 FR 5690, Jan. 25, 2013]
#### § 1233.5 What is the Director's obligation with respect to federal interagency coordination?

The Director, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and ACTION regarding programs covered under these regulations.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 14, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14843

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00039-CR-5-RS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RICHARD ALLEN ADDERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 14, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Grossman, appointed counsel for Richard Allen Adderson in this
2

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Adderson’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

REAPPOINTMENT TO APPELLATE 

COURT PROCEDURAL RULES 

COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 267

APPELLATE COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2017, Carrie L. Allman, Esquire, Montgomery 

County, is hereby reappointed as a member of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules 

Committee for a term of three years, commencing July 1, 2017.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Pearce.

*Appeals—Interlocutory order—Order refusing to quash indictment.*

An order refusing to quash an indictment is an interlocutory order from which an independent appeal does not lie.

Submitted Oct. 5, 1914.

Appeal, No. 137, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from order of Q. S. Phila. Co., Feb. Sessions, 1914, No. 404, refusing to quash indictment in case of Commonwealth v. Ellis M. Pearce.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Motion to quash appeal.

*Hugh Roberts*and *Chas. H. Westbrook,*for appellant.

*Joseph H. Taulane,*assistant district attorney, and *Samuel P. Rotan,*district attorney, for appellee.

October 12, 1914:

Per Curiam,

An order refusing to quash an indictment is clearly an interlocutory order from which an independent appeal does not lie: Quay’s Petition, 189 Pa. 517 at page 542. Therefore without discussing the-v other reason assigned by the district attorney, the motion to quash is allowed.

The appeal is quashed.
Exhibit
      32.1




**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350**




I,
      Ellen
      J. Talles, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Sadhana Equity Investment,
      Inc.
      (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:




1.
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Corporation for the period July 5, 2006
      (inception) through December 31, 2006 (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 Corporation.





Date:
      March 26, 2007


By:
            /s/
              Ellen J.
              TallesEllen
              J. TallesPresident,
              Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
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.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

# AGENCY:

National Archives and Records Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services. 

# DATES:

December 4, 2006 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The U.S. Capitol Building, Room H-137, Washington, DC. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard H. Hunt, Director; Center for Legislative Archives at (202) 357-5350. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda. 

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Fourth Report. 

Update on the Center for Legislative Archives. 

Other current issues and new business. 

The meeting is open to the public. This notice is published less than 15 calendar days before the meeting because of scheduling difficulties. 

Dated: November 22, 2006. 

Londell Buckson, 

NARA Federal Register Certifying Official. 

[FR Doc. 06-9442 Filed 11-22-06; 3:48 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0734 Directorate ID : 20 12 - SW - 080 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 146 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect pitting or penetration of the base metal of the piston rod that could lead to the piston rod’s failure, the servo actuator’s failure, and the loss of helicopter control . Cost:  In specting the servo actuators would require 4 work- hours for a labor cost of $340 per helicopter, and $49,640 for the U.S. fleet.  Overhauling the servo actuators would require 8 work- hours for a labor cost of $680. Parts would cost $11,900 for a total cost of $12,580 per helicopter.  Replacing the servo actuators would require 8 work- hours for a labor cost of $680. Parts would cost $35,700 for a total cost of $36,380 per helicopter.

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 : Matt Wilbanks
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00031-CR

Rosendo Torres, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 283RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. F-9603701-WT, HONORABLE PAUL BANNER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Rosendo Torres pleaded guilty to possessin g more than 400 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (f) (West Supp. 2003). The district court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant’s court-appointed atto r ney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); C u rrie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.2

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the r ecord and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson
Affirmed Filed: November 20, 2003
Do Not Publish
#### § 1803.1 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by executive agencies.
Gráfica: Insignia oficial 

de DOT/NHTSA

Gráfica: Logo de NHTSA 

de Gente Salvando Gente

Administración Nacional de Seguridad del Tráfico en las Carreteras (NHTSA) 

1-888-327-4236

TABLA DE CONTENIDO

Como Comprar un Auto 

Más Seguro para Niños Pasajeros 

2003

Información General sobre 

el Uso de Asientos de 

Seguridad

Reduciendo sus Opciones

Medidas de Seguridad para 

Niños Pasajeros

Compatibilidad de los 

Asientos de Seguridad

Otros Factores para 

Considerar

Tenga Cuidado con las 

Áreas de Peligro para Niños
Lista de Medidas de 

Seguridad para el Automóvil 

Familiar

Para Información Adicional

Gráfica de Medidas de 

Seguridad en Vehículos del 

2003

Foto de mujer instalando un asiento de seguridad 

de niño

NHTSA / NHTSA Multicultural

Gráfica: Insignia oficial 

de DOT/NHTSA

Gráfica: Logo de NHTSA 

de Gente Salvando Gente
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**IMPLANT SCIENCES CORPORATION**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Implant Sciences Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane J.Ryan, Chief Financial Officer 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 my knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | */s/*Diane J. Ryan       |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Diane  J. Ryan           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | May  12, 2006            |

 

----
EX-31.2  CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Philip A. Shiels, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ASI Entertainment,
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 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 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 (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 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 control 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 control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2008

/s/ Philip A. Shiels

Philip A. Shiels
Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
§ 2502.100 How will AmeriCorps handle the request for indemnification? ( a ) The head of the office or their designee will review the employee's request and submit all of the following to the General Counsel: ( 1 ) The original or a copy of the employee's request.
( 2 ) A recommendation to approve or deny the request.
( 3 ) A detailed analysis of the basis for a recommendation.
( 4 ) A certification from the Chief Financial Officer as to whether the agency has funds available to pay the indemnification.
( b ) The General Counsel will: ( 1 ) Review the circumstances of the incident that gave rise to the action or proceeding, and all data relevant to the question of whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
( 2 ) Where appropriate, seek the views of the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the U.S. Attorney for the district encompassing the location where the action or proceeding is brought.
( 3 ) Prepare a recommendation to approve or deny the request.
( 4 ) Forward the request, the accompanying documentation, and the General Counsel's recommendation to the CEO for a decision.