alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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 on Form 10-Q of Century Properties Fund XIX, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

       /s/Steven D. Cordes

Name:  Steven D. Cordes

Date:  August 12, 2009

 

 

      /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name:  Stephen B. Waters

Date:  August 12, 2009

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 236.772 Machine, interlocking.

An assemblage of manually operated levers or other devices for the control of signals, switches or other units.

Cross Reference:

Magnet, track, see [§ 236.744](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-236.744).
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.245 Repair or removal of defects. ( a ) Each weld that is unacceptable under § 192.241(c) must be removed or repaired. Except for welds on an offshore pipeline being installed from a pipeline vessel, a weld must be removed if it has a crack that is more than 8 percent of the weld length.
( b ) Each weld that is repaired must have the defect removed down to sound metal and the segment to be repaired must be preheated if conditions exist which would adversely affect the quality of the weld repair. After repair, the segment of the weld that was repaired must be inspected to ensure its acceptability.
( c ) Repair of a crack, or of any defect in a previously repaired area must be in accordance with written weld repair procedures that have been qualified under § 192.225. Repair procedures must provide that the minimum mechanical properties specified for the welding procedure used to make the original weld are met upon completion of the final weld repair.
[Amdt. 192-46, 48 FR 48674, Oct. 20, 1983]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00768-CV

Mark HOMER a/k/a Doc’s Space Center,

Appellant

v.

Ernesto MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 380903A

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Mark Homer a/k/a

Doc’s Space Center.

SIGNED December 5, 2018.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
§ 37.215 Review of requirements. ( a ) Beginning October 28, 2005, the Department will review the requirements of § 37.189 and their implementation. The Department will complete this review by October 30, 2006. ( 1 ) As part of this review, the Department will consider factors including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: ( i ) The percentage of accessible buses in the demand-responsive fleets of large and small demand-responsive operators.
( ii ) The success of small and large demand-responsive operators' service at meeting the requests of passengers with disabilities for accessible buses in a timely manner.
( iii ) The ridership of small and large operators' demand-responsive service by passengers with disabilities.
( iv ) The volume of complaints by passengers with disabilities.
( v ) Cost and service impacts of implementation of the requirements of § 37.189.
( 2 ) The Department will make one of the following decisions on the basis of the review: ( i ) Retain § 37.189 without change; or
( ii ) Modify the requirements of § 37.189 for large and/or small demand-responsive operators.
( b ) Beginning October 30, 2006, the Department will review the requirements of §§ 37.183, 37.185, 37.187, 37.191 and 37.193(a) and their implementation. The Department will complete this review by October 29, 2007. ( 1 ) As part of this review, the Department will consider factors including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: ( i ) The percentage of accessible buses in the fixed-route fleets of large and small fixed-route operators.
( ii ) The success of small and large fixed-route operators' interim or equivalent service at meeting the requests of passengers with disabilities for accessible buses in a timely manner.
( iii ) The ridership of small and large operators' fixed-route service by passengers with disabilities.
( iv ) The volume of complaints by passengers with disabilities.
( v ) Cost and service impacts of implementation of the requirements of these sections.
( 2 ) The Department will make one of the following decisions on the basis of the review: ( i ) Retain §§ 37.183, 37.185, 37.187, 37.191, 37.193(a) without change; or
( ii ) Modify the requirements of §§ 37.183, 37.185, 37.187, 37.191, 37.193(a) for large and/or small fixed-route operators.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Cohoes Railway Company, Appellant, *v.*The Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Second District, et al., Respondents.

*People ex rel. Cohoes Ry. Co.*v. *Public Service Commission,*143 App. Div. 769, affirmed.

(Argued April 24, 1911;

decided May 9, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 10, 1911, which confirmed a determination of the defendant commission directing the relator to charge a five-cent fare, instead of six cents, on its cars running between the cities of Albany and Rensselaer, in compliance with chapter 358 of the Laws of 1905.

*Lewis E. Carr*and *Patrick C. Dugan*for appellant.

*Ledyard P. Hale*and *Thomas F. McDermott*forespondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Cray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
From: Keith Grubb [mailto:keithgrubb@fbia.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:08 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: MHPAEA

Regarding: MHPAEA and Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 

 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

 

 I realize you are seeking data regarding the implementation of MHPAEA and what 

I have to say, I feel, is the most important data you could know from someone in the 

field. 

 In my daily service to the public I have come upon many persons who feel in need 

of or are under mental health treatment. I have seen these treatments escalate from 

one pill to many without any real solution of the condition. In fact per the FDA many 

of these drugs are dangerous and have "Black Box" warnings the most stern warning 

given by the FDA. On the other hand I have seen much success engendered through 

changes of diet, study habits, techniques of dealing with stress and avoiding 

sleep deprivation. It is "how do we learn to live in today's society" that will solve our 

problems not "who pays for what drugs" that only mask symptoms and discourage 

real solutions from being found. 

 Education of the public as to consequences of the way they live is paramount and 

I believe is the beginning of a real solution which will cause the need for medical care 

to decrease. Therefore moneys spent in that direction are the best used. 

 

 Thank you for your time. 

 

Sincerely, 

Keith Grubb 

 

Family & Business 

Insurance Agency 

1-877-444-5944
§ 27.19 Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and FTA policy. ( a ) Recipients subject to this part (whether public or private entities as defined in 49 CFR part 37) shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department's ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38), the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing titles II and III of the ADA (28 CFR parts 35 and 36), and the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) implementing title I of the ADA (29 CFR part 1630). Compliance with the EEOC title I regulations is required as a condition of compliance with section 504 for DOT recipients even for organizations which, because they have fewer than 25 or 15 employees, would not be subject to the EEOC regulation in its own right. Compliance with all these regulations is a condition of receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation. Any recipient not in compliance with this requirement shall be subject to enforcement action under subpart C of this part.
( b ) Consistent with FTA policy, any recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration whose solicitation was made before August 26, 1990, and is for one or more inaccessible vehicles, shall provide written notice to the Secretary (e.g., in the case of a solicitation made in the past under which the recipient can order additional new buses after the effective date of this section). The Secretary shall review each case individually, and determine whether the Department will continue to participate in the Federal grant, consistent with the provisions in the grant agreement between the Department and the recipient.
[55 FR 40763, Oct. 4, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991; 61 FR 32354, June 24, 1996; 79 FR 21405, Apr. 16, 2014]
Ballast Engineering Analysis Workshop

Agenda .

Terry Logee, introduction

Purpose of Workshop - NOT PICKING STANDARDS

Background

Next Steps

Ike Turiel, introduction to LBL's engineering analysis.

Presentation of ballast price analysis

Presentation of wattage analysis

Explanation of 10%, 50%, maximum efficiency

Lunch

One hour around 12 noon

Barbara Atkinson, presentation on engineering/economic analysis

Main assumptions

Methodology

New data since publication of tables (if any, eg. prices,

operating hours)

Tandem wiring

Ike Turiel

Equal light output correction (more fixtures/ballasts

to normalize for ballast factor?)

Sensitivity analysis:

Distribute written materials

Discussion

General Discussion Items

Non-energy factors

Public Presentations

Insert into the agenda when topic is discussed

QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME AT ANY TIME DURING THIS WORKSHOP

Lamp Ballasts Workshop March 17, 1995 Comment 07
Explanation of Calculations

No. 1 Power Boiler Specifically for maximum 24 hour averages for NOx and PM = stack test values. Specifically for maximum 24 hour averages for SO 2 = AP42 factors for bark (0.25 lb/MMBTU + fuel oil usage at (157(%S)/1000) , average %S for fuel oil of 2%, X the maximum day of oil usage.

No. 2 Power Boiler Specifically for maximum 24 hour averages of NOx and SO 2 = CEMS data. Specifically for maximum 24 hour averages of PM = stack test values and AP-42 factors X maximum day of coal burning and maximum day of bark burning in each calendar year.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0870.html[7/21/2015 4:54:32 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-74z1

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0870

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Charles Higgins

Address:

592 Millwright Rd

Holly Springs, MS, 38635

Email: puoced@aol.com

Phone: 6625644092

General Comment

If i put my own money into Social Security or a 401K or a 403B I should be able to spend the money I receive

 from these accounts the way I want to. I know you think you know better than the people you are trying to

 control but if this is to be a free country the people deserve a chance to make their own choices.
Exhibit
31.2   Form of Rule 13a-14(a) [Section 302] Certification   CERTIFICATIONS  I, David
V. Smith, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q
of Chiron Corporation;  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(s) 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) [Paragraph reserved pursuant to SEC
Release 33-8238.]  c) 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  d) 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 officers
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
function):  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: November 12, 2003  /s/ 
  DAVID V. SMITHDavid V. SmithVice President, Finance and Chief Financial
  Officer
Exhibit 31-2



Certification

I, Joseph J. Syta, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003;

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; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter 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:

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:  March 8, 2004 | /s/Joseph J. Syta       Joseph J. Syta
       Controller and Treasurer
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheila McQuinn [mailto:sheila.mcquinn@verizon.net] 

Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:51 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Proposed ruling to parity act concerns from Worcester, MA

_______________________________________________________________ 

Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4

 

I am a school psychologist trained in cognitive rehabilitative therapy who provides 

neurofeedback treatment to individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and 

Mood Disorders. Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective 

non-medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50 studies 

evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, substance use 

disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature concluded "Neurofeedback meets the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for Clinical Guidelines for 

treatment of ADHD." This means that neurofeedback meets the same criteria as medication 

for treating ADHD, of which 60% of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off label," and that 

neurofeedback "should always be considered as an intervention for this disorder by the 

clinician." 

 

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, Blue 

Cross, Cigna, and Amerigroup. 

 

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health problem. The 

reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial fell into two categories: 1) our 

company does not cover biofeedback for mental health problems or 2) there is not yet 

sufficient evidence for the efficacy of neurofeedback. As such, they are using evidence-based 

criteria that are far more restrictive for mental health services than the criteria which are 

used for medical/surgical services. There are many routine medical and surgical procedures 

which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does neurofeedback. These 

medical and surgical procedures are generally not limited because of concerns about how 

many controlled studies have been performed about them. 

 We believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute should 

require that employers and plans pay for the same range and scope of services for behavioral 

treatments as they do for medical surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive 

in their managed care criteria and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders 

when compared to medical surgery. Today plans are being more restrictive in how they 

review evidenced-based mental health and Substance Abuse Treatments when compared to 

medical surgical treatments. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute and 

we hope that the regulations will clarify that this can't continue. 

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter, 

Sheila McQuinn, MA 

School psychologist
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 173 (Friday, September 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4363]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Poxvirus Program Project.
    Date: October 4, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f5f2e5f3eafbffa1d0fef9f1f9f4befef9f8bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f5f2e5f3eafbffa1d0fef9f1f9f4befef9f8bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 29, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4363 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT RICHARDSON,

Petitioner

v.

PRESIDENT JUDGE OF COMMON 

PLEAS COURT OF PHILADELPHIA 

COUNTY AND CLERK OF THE COURT 

OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA 

COUNTY,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 186 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.