alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 34.2 Definitions.

In this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

*Claim* means any claim filed by or on behalf of an employee for damage to, or loss of, property that is incident to the claimant's employment. This definition includes claims where the claimant is not the legal owner of the property in question, but has obtained authorization from the legal owner to posses or control the property.

*Claimant* means an employee who has filed a claim with the Department under the MPCE Act.

*Damage or loss* means total or partial destruction or loss of the item claimed.

*Department* means the Department of Health and Human Services.

*Employee* means an officer or employee of the Department.

*Quarters* means a house, apartment or other residence assigned by the government to an employee of the Department.
ofix-ex101_32.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ORTHOFIX MEDICAL INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED

2012 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, Orthofix Medical Inc. (the “Company”) has established and maintains the Amended and Restated 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and

WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors desires to amend the Plan, subject to the approval of the Company’s shareholders, solely to increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company reserved and available for issuance pursuant to the Plan by 1,100,000 shares.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the Company’s Board of Directors by Section 5.3 of the Plan, the Plan be and hereby is amended, subject to approval by the Company’s shareholders (this “Amendment”), in the following particulars, to be effective as of the date the Company’s shareholders approve this Amendment:

1. By substituting the phrase “Five Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand (5,850,000) shares” for the phrase “Four Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (4,750,000) shares” in Section 4.1(a) of the Plan.

 

* * * * *

 

Note: Amendment was approved by the Company’s shareholders, and became effective, on June 8, 2020.
§ 400.116 Service for unaccompanied minors. ( a ) A State must provide unaccompanied minors with the same range of child welfare benefits and services available in foster care cases to other children in the State. Allowable benefits and services may include foster care maintenance (room, board, and clothing) payments; medical assistance; support services; services identified in the State's plans under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act; services permissible under title XX of the Social Security Act; and expenditures incurred in establishing legal responsibility.
( b ) A State may provide additional services if the Director, or his or her designee, determines such services to be reasonable and necessary for a particular child or children and provides written notification of such determination to the State.
#### § 400.146 Use of funds.

The State must use its social service grants primarily for employability services designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of becoming enrolled in services in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Social services may continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Social service funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as vocational training that last for more than a year or educational programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.

[60 FR 33603, June 28, 1995]
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Mackenzie Taylor Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kendall O’Leary, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Date: May 12, 2011
 
 
 KENDALL O’LEARY
 Kendall O’Leary
 Chief Accounting Officer, Chief
 Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

NO. 2:08-CV-39-H(1) 

HOLLY LYNN KOERBER and 

COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN 

POLITICS, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

ORDER 

v. 

FEDERAL	 ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to 

stay this action pending final resolution on the merits 

(including further remands and appeals) of the United States 

Supreme Court's remand to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit in The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 

No. 09-724, 2010 WL 1641299, (U.S. Apr. 26, 2010) ("RTAO"). 

Plaintiffs contend that their claims involve some of the same 

legal issues presented in RTAO and that resolution of the issues 

in RTAO will guide this court in its decision in the instant 

case. Defendant Federal Election Commission does not oppose a 

stay. 

In the court's discretion, and in the interests of justice 

and for the efficient administration of judicial resources, 

plaintiff's motion to stay [DE #64] is GRANTED and the instant 

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 65 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
case is hereby STAYED pending final resolution of RTAO. The 

parties shall promptly notify the court upon conclusion of the 

proceedings in RTAO. Defendant's answer to plaintiffs' amended 

complaint shall be due within fourteen (14) days after the stay 

is lifted. 

3(! This _' day of June 2010. 

District Judge 

At Greenville, NC 

#31 

2
 

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 65 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A07-07 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the ) Agenda Documents No. 11-18 and No. 

Tennessee Democratic Party ) 11-18-A 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission 

open meeting on April 07,2011, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve Agenda Document No. 11-18-A. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn H, Petersen, Walther and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date Shawn Woodhead WCT£ 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
Exhibit 34.5

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.6) that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by auto loan receivables, as described in Schedule I of Exhibit 33.6 (the Applicable Servicing Criteria ), as of and for the period from June 8, 2006 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2006.  Exhibit 33.6 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the CoveredTransactions) defined by management as part of their assessment. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period June 8, 2006 through December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 5, 2007
**Exhibit 31.1**
  **Certification**
  DEPOSITOR’S
        CERTIFICATION
  I,
        Todd
         Wallace, certify that:
  1.  I
        have
        reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required
        to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K
        of
        GE-WMC Mortgage Securities, L.L.C., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
        Series 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act Periodic Reports”);
  2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do 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 as of the last day of the period
        covered by this annual report;
  3.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;
  4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report
        under
        Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and, except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
        Periodic Reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
        agreement in all material respects; and
  5.  All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules
        13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
        as
        otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
        described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
        10-K.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: Litton Loan Servicing LP and The Bank
        of
        New York.
  Date:
        March 29, 2007
  /s/
        Todd
        Wallace
 By:  Todd
        Wallace
 Title:
        President
#### § 263.14 What methodology shall States use to allocate TANF costs?

States shall use a benefiting program cost allocation methodology consistent with the general requirements of subpart E of part 75 of this title to allocate TANF costs.

[73 FR 42721, July 23, 2008, as amended at 81 FR 3020, Jan. 20, 2016]
#### §§ 605.62-605.90 [Reserved]
25 January 2017 

Federal Election Commission 

Audit Division 

Attn: Douglas Kodish 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Wash, D.C. 20463 

Re: Reply to Interim Audit Report flARI dated 06 December 2016 

Dear Mr. Kodish, 

This is our reply to the findings enumerated in your lAR dated Dec. 6,2016. 

Finding 1. - Misstatement of Financial Activity 

A. The misstatements shown on your schedules are numbers derived from FECfile reports 

submitted prior to November 18,20 IS, the date of the audit notification letter. 

Subsequent to this date, on January 13,2016, we submitted amended reports for 2013 & 

2014, which significantly change the differences. Using the amended numbers, the 

following schedule looks like this: 

2013 2014 TOTAL 

Beg Cash on hand Jan 1 $175,600 $263,437 $175,600 

Receipts $380,843 $462,985 $843,828 

Disbursements ($293,006) ($418,751) ($711,757) 

Ending Cash on Hand Dec 31 $263,437 $307,761 $307,761 

Ending cash bal. at Dec 31,2014 per lAR $ 318,036 

Ending cash bal. at Dec 31,2014 per above schedule. $ 307.761 

Difference $ 10,275 

Between the period of 2013-2014, the reports and amended reports were submitted in good faith 

to correct any misstated amounts, and the reduction of the difference (shown above) evidences 

that AFSAPAC has taken corrective action. The misstatements are all timing related, due to staff 

limitations & the difficulty in working with the FEC file software. Going forward, AFSAPAC 

will not encounter this mistake again. 

Finding 2 - Excessive Contributions Made to Federal Candidates 
The lAR points to excessive contributions made to Federal Candidates totaling $18,000. 

AFSAPAC has requested and received approval to re-designate the amounts below, and further 

has amended its reports to correctly disclose the redesignation of contributions. 

Duffy for Congress $ 4,000 Re-designated 

Friends of Dennis Ross $ 2,500 Re-designated 

Friends of Jeb Hensarling $ 3,000 Re-designated 

Friends of Pat Toomey $ 1,000 Re-designated 

Mulvaney for Congress $ 2,500 Re-designated 

Team Graham $ 5.000 Re-designated 

from primary to general 

from primary to general 

from primary to general 

from primary to general 

from primary to general 

from primary to general 

TOTAL $18,000 

Sincerely, 

BillHimpler 

Treasurer, AFSAPAC 

American Financial Services Association 

Washington, D.C. 

(202) 466-8616 | bhimpler@afsamail.org | www.afsaonline.org
§ 1216.1-4 Exceptions. ( a ) The requirements of § 1216.1-3 are not applicable to the following, or similar, situations: ( 1 ) Funds are unavailable for the employment of sufficient staff to accomplish a program authorized or of a character eligible for assistance under the Act and the activity, service, or duty is otherwise appropriate for the assignment of a volunteer.
( 2 ) Volunteer services are required in order to avoid or relieve suffering threatened by or resulting from major natural disasters or civil disturbances.
( 3 ) Reasonable efforts to obtain employed workers have been unsuccessful due to the unavailability of persons within the community who are able, willing, and qualified to perform the needed activities.
( 4 ) The assignment of volunteers will significantly expand services to a target community over those which could be performed by existing paid staff, and the activity, service or duty is otherwise appropriate for the assignment of a volunteer and no actual displacement of paid staff will occur as a result of the assignment.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) and (4) of this section, the assignment is not appropriate for the assignment of a volunteer if: ( 1 ) The service, duty, or activity is principally a routine administrative or clerical task. This definition applies only to any service, duty, or activity performed by a volunteer receiving financial support apart from reimbursement for expenses.
( 2 ) The volunteer is not directly in contact with groups or individuals whom the Act is designed to serve or is not performing services, duties, or engaged in activities authorized or of a character eligible for assistance under the Act.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                    2676152
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             3813129
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            190339617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                92013176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              190339617
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          22061118
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          18431149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        5208362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1578393)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1578393)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1578393)
<EPS-BASIC>                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0


</TABLE>
#### § 1626.3 Prohibition.

Recipients may not provide legal assistance for or on behalf of an ineligible alien. For purposes of this part, legal assistance does not include normal intake and referral services.
#### § 2104.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
Presidential Documents

10031 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 43 

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8112 of February 28, 2007 

Amending Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, To Read, 

‘‘Establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument’’ 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

WHEREAS Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, established the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States, including section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 

(34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do amend Proclamation 8031 for the purpose 

of giving the monument a Native Hawaiian name and making the following 

conforming changes and corrections; 

Section 1. The title of Proclamation 8031 is amended to read, ‘‘Establishment 

of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument’’. 

Sec. 2. The phrase Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument is amended to read Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, 

wherever it appears in Proclamation 8031. 

Sec. 3. Under Findings, Additional Findings for Native Hawaiian Practice 

Permits, 2(e) is amended to read: Any living monument resource harvested 

from the monument will be consumed or utilized in the monument. 

Sec. 4. The title of the map of the Monument accompanying Proclamation 

8031 is amended to read, ‘‘Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument’’ 

and the word ‘‘Sanctuary’’ in the map is deleted wherever it appears and 

the word ‘‘Monument’’ is inserted in lieu thereof. 

[FR Doc. 07–1077 

Filed 3–5–07; 8:58 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES5GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0958

Filed July 16, 2014

TERRY HARRIS,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, 

Judge.

Terry Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for 

postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance on the part of his trial and 

appellate counsel. AFFIRMED.

Michael J. Piper of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney 

General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Mark H. Taylor, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee State.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2

DOYLE, J.

Terry Harris was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to 

deliver, failure to possess a tax stamp, and possession of marijuana. A jury 

found Harris guilty as charged. In his direct appeal, Harris claimed his Sixth 

Amendment right to confront his accuser was violated when a police officer was 

allowed to testify about a controlled drug buy without the testimony of the 

confidential informant. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not 

trying to learn the informant’s identity through a pretrial motion to compel 

disclosure or a motion to suppress. This court affirmed Harris’s convictions. See 

State v. Harris, No. 10-0643, 2011 WL 2078193, at *5-6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 

2011).

Harris filed a pro se application for postconviction relief (PCR) raising 

essentially the same issues he raised on direct appeal—that his trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to obtain the identity of the confidential informant, thus 

denying Harris the right to confront his accuser. He later filed a pro se 

supplemental application, asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

fully investigate the case and for failing to file a motion to suppress. Through 

counsel, Harris’s PCR application was later amended to allege his appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims under the Iowa Constitution.

We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court’s PCR ruling. 

The district court’s ruling is thorough and well-reasoned. Upon our de novo 

review, see Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012), we find the 

district court addressed the claims raised by Harris, and we agree with the court’s 

findings and conclusions. Any further discussion by our court of the issues 
3

raised would add little to, and not change, the disposition of this case. 

Accordingly, the district court’s ruling denying Harris’s PCR application is

affirmed without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (d).

AFFIRMED.