alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 156.1125 Enrollee satisfaction survey system. ( a ) *General requirement.* A QHP issuer must contract with an HHS-approved enrollee satisfaction survey (ESS) vendor, as identified by § 156.1105, in order to administer the Enrollee Satisfaction Survey of the QHP's enrollees. A QHP issuer must authorize its contracted ESS vendor to report survey results to HHS and the Exchange on the issuer's behalf.
( b ) *Data requirement.* ( 1 ) A QHP issuer must collect data for each QHP, with more than 500 enrollees in the previous year that has been offered in an Exchange for at least one year and following a survey sampling methodology provided by HHS.
( 2 ) In order to ensure the integrity of the data required to conduct the survey, a QHP issuer must submit data that has been validated in a form and manner specified by HHS, and submit this data to its contracted ESS vendor.
( 3 ) A QHP issuer must include in its data submission information only for those QHP enrollees at the level specified by HHS.
( c ) *Marketing requirement.* A QHP issuer may reference the survey results for its QHPs in its marketing materials, in a manner specified by HHS.
( d ) *Timeline.* A QHP issuer must annually submit data necessary to conduct the survey to its contracted ESS vendor on a timeline and in a standardized form and manner specified by HHS.
( e ) *Multi-State plans.* Issuers of multi-State plans, as defined in § 155.1000(a) of this subchapter, must provide the data described in paragraph (b) of this section to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in the time and manner specified by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
[79 FR 30352, May 27, 2014]
#### § 2519.730 May an applicant submit more than one application to the Corporation for the same project at the same time?

No. The Corporation will reject an application for a project if an application for funding or educational awards for the same project is already pending before the Corporation.
#### § 1351.32 What performance standards must Street Outreach Program grantees meet?

Grantees shall contact youth who are or who are at risk of homeless or runaway status on the streets in numbers that are reasonably attainable for the staff size of the project. Grantees with larger staff will be expected to contact larger numbers of youth in approximate proportion, as determined by HHS, to the larger number of staff available to provide this service. Each grantee shall report data related to this outcome, using existing data collection and reporting processes, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office of Management and Budget Control Numbers 0970-0406 and 0970-0123, and their successors.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

September 2, 2021

v No. 352328

Oakland Circuit Court

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH BERAK, LC No. 2018-266276-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and SERVITTO and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

LETICA, P.J. (concurring).

I agree with the majority except as to its suggestion that the prosecution was required to 

call another witness in place of Deputy Overall’s son to identify Deputy Overall as the peace 

officer who was killed. To the contrary, “[t]here is no rule requiring the prosecution to use only 

the least prejudicial evidence per se to establish facts at issue.” People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 

452; 537 NW2d 577 (1995). And a party, including a prosecutor, “ ‘is entitled to hit as hard as he

can above, but not below, the belt.’ ” People v Vasher, 449 Mich 494, 501; 537 NW2d 168 (1995), 

quoting State v Rollo, 221 Or 428, 438; 351 P2d 422 (1960). Although the prosecutor’s openended question to the deceased’s adult son about “briefly” describing his father was not laserfocused on the elements of the charged offenses, there was no objection and defendant has not 

shown plain error occurred in light of the trial court’s instruction that the jury not base its decision 

on sympathy—an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed. People v Unger, 278 Mich 

App 210, 237; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586, 591-592; 629 

NW2d 411 (2001). Indeed, it is hardly surprising that a son looks up to his father or that a longtime public servant like Deputy Overall wanted to help people in their time of need and assist them

with solving their problems. Moreover, the record does not reflect an emotional breakdown or 

outburst from Deputy Overall’s son that had the potential to prejudice defendant’s right to a fair 

trial. Instead, Deputy Overall’s son’s testimony was brief. It included the admission of an in-life 

photograph and relevant testimony that Deputy Overall was on-duty and died from his injuries. 

MRE 401; People v Browning, 106 Mich App 516, 523-524; 308 NW2d 264 (1981); People v 

Sullivan, 97 Mich App 488, 492; 296 NW2d 81 (1980). It consumed just twelve pages in a trial
-2-

that lasted ten days with the parties largely battling over defendant’s intent and premeditation. 

How Deputy Overall’s brutal, bloody death played out in real life was certainly compelling, but

the prosecution was not required to sanitize it by calling a less gripping witness than his son to 

testify. Fisher, 449 Mich at 452.

/s/ Anica Letica
#### § 1336.32 Grants.

Generally, financial assistance will be made available for a one-year budget period and subsequent non-competing continuation awards with the same project period will also be for one year. A recipient must submit a separate application to have financial assistance continued for each subsequent year, with the same project period, but the continuation application need only contain budget and a summary progress report.
# CongressionalCandidate Table 5e
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

                   
This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to
Change of Control Agreement is made as of the 31st day of October, 2000, by and
between Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (the
"Company"), and G. Kenneth Stephens, Jr. (the "Employee").


W I T N E S S E T H:


                   
WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Employment Agreement with the
Employee dated as of January 31, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement");

                   
WHEREAS, the Company has entered into a Change of Control Agreement with the
Employee dated as of January 31, 2000 (the "Change of Control
Agreement"); and

                   
WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to an extension of the
terms of the Employment Agreement and the Change of Control Agreement, as set
forth herein.

                   
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of
Employee by the Company and the payment of wages, salary and other compensation
to Employee by the Company, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective
October 31, 2000:

                   
Section 1.     Except as expressly amended herein, all of the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement and Change of Control Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

                   
Section 2.     Article I, Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows:


  
                   
    Employment Term.     The term of this Agreement (the "Employment
    Term") shall commence on the Agreement Date and shall continue through
    October 31, 2001, subject to any earlier termination of Employee's
    status as an employee pursuant to this Agreement.

  



                   
Section 3.     Article II, Section 2.1(a) of the Change of Control
Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


  
                2.1    
    Employment Term and Capacity after Change of Control. (a) If a
    Change of Control occurs on or before October 31, 2001, then the Employee's
    employment term (the "Employment Term") shall continue through the
    second anniversary of the Change of Control, subject to any earlier
    termination of Employee's status as an employee pursuant to this
    Agreement.

  



                   
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed and signed as of the date indicated above.

	 	STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
      By:  /s/ James W. McFarland                  

                  James W. McFarland

                 Compensation Committee Chairman

	 	 
      EMPLOYEE:

        /s/  G. Kenneth Stephens,
      Jr.             
        

                   
      G. Kenneth Stephens, Jr.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Michigan Community Bancorp Limited,
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Frank D. Blowers, Principal Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



/s/      Frank D. Blowers
   ---------------------------------
         Frank D. Blowers
         Principal Financial Officer
         May 14, 2003
# Phantom 3 Professional-Specifications

From DJI Wiki Page 1 of 3 Phantom 3 Professional - Specifications - DJI Wiki

11/9/2015 http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional - SpecificationsPage 2 of 3

Phantom 3 Professional - Specifications - DJI Wiki

11/9/2015 http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional - SpecificationsRetrieved from "http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php?title=Phantom_3_Professional-Specifications&oldid=23039"

◾ This page was last modified on 18 May 2015, at 20:39. ◾ This page has been accessed 1,668 times. Page 3 of 3 Phantom 3 Professional - Specifications - DJI Wiki

11/9/2015 http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional - Specifications
Original,

No. 5289.

#### Francis J. Lavoie v. J. Arthur Tufts and Robert Stark, *Secretary of State.*

Argued September 30, 1964.

Decided September 30, 1964.

*Francis f.*Lavoie, pro se.

*Robert W. Upton*for the defendant Tufts.

Per curiam.

The plaintiff, an unsuccessful candidate for State Senator in District No. *22*in the 1964 Republican primary held on September 8, 1964, filed a petition in this court seeking a decree pursuant to the provisions of RSA 70:17 (supp) disqualifying the defendant from becoming a candidate at the ensuing election. The petition alleged that the defendant, who was the successful candidate for that office in the same primary, had violated the law relating to political expenditures and advertising by expending an amount in excess of that allowed for a candidate for State Senator (RSA 70:4 I (9) (supp)), and by posting political advertising which did not bear the name and address of the candidate or his fiscal agent, in violation of RSA 70:14 (supp).

The petition was filed in this court on September 22, 1964. The court ordered the plaintiff to file specifications of his charges *14and serve a copy of his petition and specifications on the defendant and the Secretary of State. RSA 70:17 (supp). The plaintiff complied with this order.

On September 30, 1964 the court heard the parties and their witnesses and permitted the plaintiff and the defendant’s counsel to argue the merits of the petition. The plaintiff filed no specification relative to excessive expenditures (RSA 70:4 I (9) (supp)) and this alleged violation was waived.

The pertinent part of RSA 70:17 (supp) reads as follows: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter relating to the primary has been violated by or in behalf of a candidate *with his knowledge and consent,*may . . . bring a proceeding in equity in the supreme court against the candidate alleged to have violated said provisions *in such manner*... if the court shall find that the defendant had *thus*violated any of such provisions, a decree shall be entered disqualifying the defendant from becoming a candidate at the ensuing election.” (Emphasis supplied).

As indicated in *State*v. *Sullivan,*101 N. H. 429, 432, a violation of this section must be willful “before the court can disqualify a candidate.” The evidence in the present case indicated that the defendant after filing as a candidate in the 1964 primary, had posted a small number of posters which were unsigned and had been purchased for a former primary campaign in 1962. The evidence also showed, however, that the candidate subsequently had purchased approximately 200 posters which did contain his name and address and he had also used these in the 1964 Republican primary. It appeared that only a small portion of the candidate’s total political advertising failed by inadvertence to comply with the law. This was not the willful violation required by the statute in order to disqualify the defendant “from becoming a candidate at the ensuing election.” RSA 70:17 (supp). Accordingly the order is

*Petition dismissed.*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

DATA CALL-IN RESPONSE

Form Approved.

OMB Control Nos. 

2070-0057; 2070-0107;

2070-0122; 2070-0164

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average XXXX hour per response for reregistration and special review activities, including time for reading the

instructions and completing the necessary forms. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to: Director, Collection

Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. Do not send the form to this address.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. Use additional sheets if necessary.

1. Company Name and Address 2. Case # and Name

 Chemical # and Name

3. Date and Type of DCI

4. EPA Product Registration 5. I wish to cancel this

product registration

voluntarily

6. Generic Data 7. Product Specific Data

6a. I am claiming a Generic Data

Exemption because I obtain the

active ingredient from the source

EPA registration number listed

below.

6b. I agree to satisfy Generic

Data requirements as indicated

on the attached for entitled

“Requirements Status and

Registrant’s Response.”

7a. My product is an MUP and I

agree to satisfy the MUP

requirements as indicated on the

attached for entitled “Requirements

Status and Registrant’s Response.”

7a. My product is an EUP and I

agree to satisfy the EUP

requirements as indicated on

the attached for entitled

“Requirements Status and

Registrant’s Response.”

8. Certification

I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be

punishable by fin or imprisonment or both under applicable law.

Signature of Company’s Authorized Representative 

9. Date

10. Name and Title (Please Print or Type) 11. Phone Number

EPA Form ______
Countrywide
                                                                   HOME LOANS
                                                          400 Countrywide Way
February 28, 2007                          Simi Valley, California 93065-6298


AURORA MSF LEHMAN
2530 S PARKER RD, #601
AURORA, CO 80014


                            OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP,
Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer").
I further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating
to the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
(the "Servicing Agreement") that:

    (a) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
     calendar year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing
     Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

    (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
    fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
    material respects throughout such year.


/s/ Joseph Candelario     February 28, 2007
----------------------    ------------------
Joseph Candelario
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration


See Deal Name listing on following page.




Exhibit A

LMT 2006-3
LMT 2006-4
LMT 2006-9
LXS 2006.10N
LXS 2006-12N
LXS 2006-16N
LXS 2006-17
LXS 2006-18N
LXS 2006-19
LXS 2006-20
LXS 2006-2N
LXS 2006-3
LXS 2006-4N
SARM 06-05
SARM 2006-1
SARM 2006-10
SARM 2006-11
SARM 2006-12
SARM 2006-2
SARM 2006-3
SARM 2006-3
SARM 2006-4
SARM 2006-4
SARM 2006-5
SARM 2006-7
SARM 2006-8
SARM 2006-9
§ 2500.11 AmeriCorps leadership. ( a ) AmeriCorps' leadership conducts overall planning, coordination of programs, and all supporting internal operations. AmeriCorps leadership includes, but is not limited to, the following AmeriCorps officials: ( 1 ) CEO.
( 2 ) Chief of Staff.
( 3 ) General Counsel.
( 4 ) Chief Operating Officer.
( 5 ) Chief Financial Officer.
( 6 ) Chief Program Officer.
( 7 ) Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer.
( 8 ) Directors of AmeriCorps programs and offices.
( b ) AmeriCorps' public website contains current information on Agency leadership at *www.americorps.gov/about/our-team/our-leadership .*
Strafford,

No. 5133.

#### Steve Perutsakos *v.*William C. Tarmey, *Adm’r.*

Argued June 5, 1963.

Decided July 9, 1963.

*James Koromilas*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*50
      *Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch {Mr. Shane Devine*orally), for the defendant.

Blandin, J.

The issue is whether the plaintiff’s action is barred by USA 556:1 (supp) because it was brought within six months after the original appointment of the defendant administrator.

The suit arises out of an alleged accident occurring on September 13, 1956, wherein the plaintiff claims he was injured by an automobile driven by the defendant’s intestate, Richard Tarmey. Richard died on May 11, 1962. On September 12 following, the administrator was appointed and on that day, being one day before the six-year statute of limitations for claims arising from the alleged accident expired (RSA 508:4), the plaintiff exhibited his demand to the defendant administrator and brought suit. RSA 556:1 (supp) (effective January 1, 1960), relied upon by the defendant for the dismissal of the action, reads as follows:

> “No action shall be sustained against an administrator if begun within six months after the original grant of administration, nor unless tire demand has been exhibited to the administrator and payment has been demanded.”

Ordinarily there would be no doubt that the action is barred. *Hall*v. Brusseau, 101 N. H. 87; see also, *Heath*v. *Cleveland,*104 N. H. 451; 2 N.H.B.J. 11, 16. The plaintiff, however, suggests that because the deceased carried liability insurance, RSA 556:1 (supp) does not apply. He says this is so because the suit, in effect, is against the insurance carrier (see *Farm Bureau Ins. Co.*v. Martin, 97 N. H. 196; *Milwaukee Ins. Co.*v. Morrill, 100 N. H. 239), and to permit it will not interfere with the “orderly and expeditious settlement of estates,” which it is the object of section 1 (supp) supra, to secure. *Vanni*v. Cloutier, 100 N. H. 272, 274; see also, *Hall*v. *Brusseau, supra,*89; see also, *Frost*v. *Frost,*100 N. H. 326.

In all the circumstances of this case, we believe a conclusive answer to this argument is the familiar rule that since the question of the effect of the alleged liability insurance was not raised at the trial in the Superior Court, it will not be considered here. *Hinchey*v. *Surety Company,*99 N. H. 373, 381; *Leavitt*v. *Benzing,*99 N. H. 193, 195.

It follows that the order is

*Judgment for the dejenda?it.*

All concurred.
§ 1634.7 Application process. ( a ) The Corporation shall set a date for receipt of applications and shall announce the date in the RFP. The date shall afford applicants adequate opportunity, after filing the notice of intent to compete, to complete the application process. The Corporation may extend the application date if necessary to take account of special circumstances.
( b ) The application shall be submitted in a form to be determined by the Corporation.
( c ) A completed application shall include all of the information requested by the RFP. It may also include any additional information needed to fully address the selection criteria, and any other information requested by the Corporation. Incomplete applications will not be considered for awards by the Corporation.
( d ) The Corporation shall establish a procedure to provide notification to applicants of receipt of the application.
Presidential Documents

66223 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 218 

Monday, November 13, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of November 6, 2006 

Determinations Under Section 1106(a) of the Omnibus Trade 

and Competitiveness Act of 1988—Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative 

Consistent with section 1006(a) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 

Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2905(a)) (the ‘‘Act’’), I determine that state trading 

enterprises account for a significant share of the exports of the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and goods that compete with imports into 

Vietnam. I further determine that such state trading enterprises unduly burden and restrict, or adversly affect, the foreign trade of the United States 

or the United States economy, or are likely to result in such burden, restriction, or effect. 

Vietnam is seeking to become a member of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO). The terms and conditions for Vietnam’s accession to the WTO include 

Vietnam’s commitments that it will ensure that all state trading enterprises 

within the meaning of section 1106 will make purchases not for governmental 

use and sales in international trade based solely on commercial considerations (including price, quality, availability, marketability, and transportation) 

and that U.S. firms will have an adequate opportunity, in accordance with 

customary business practice, to compete for participation in sales to and 

purcahses from these enterprises on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. 

In addition, the Government of Vietnam will not influence, directly or 

indirectly, commercial decisions on the part of state trading enterprises, 

including decisions on the quantity, value, or country of origin of any 

goods purchased or sold, except in a manner consistent with the Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement) 

and the rights accorded to nongovernmental enterprise owners or shareholders. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PRESDOC
66224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Presidential Documents 

The obligations that Vietnam will assume under the WTO Agreement, including Vietnam’s protocol of accession, meet the requirements of section 

1106(b)(2)(A) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2905(b)(2)(A)), and thus my determinations 

under section 1106(a) do not require invocation of the nonapplication provisions of the WTO Agreement. 

You are directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 6, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9193 

Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3190–01–M 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PRESDOCGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>