alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 384
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 384 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 384.201 Testing program. ( a ) The State shall adopt and administer a program for testing and ensuring the fitness of persons to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in accordance with the minimum Federal standards contained in part 383 of this title.
( b ) To obtain a copy of FMCSA pre-approved State Testing System referenced in §§ 383.131, 383.133 and 383.135, State Driver Licensing Agencies may contact: FMCSA, CDL Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20590.
[76 FR 26893, May 9, 2011]
#### Lewis Le Coulteux de Caumont, Appellant, v. Mary J. Morgan and others, Respondents.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 436 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 436

 Commending Special Agent Coleen Rowley for outstanding performance of 
                              her duties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2002

   Mr. Moore (for himself, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. 
  Tauscher, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. 
Lofgren, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Larsen of Washington, 
 Mr. Carson of Oklahoma, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. 
 Turner, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Waters, Ms. McCarthy 
of Missouri, Mr. Israel, Mr. Becerra, Mr. George Miller of California, 
Mr. McDermott, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Baird, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
 Langevin, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. 
Hinchey) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending Special Agent Coleen Rowley for outstanding performance of 
                              her duties.

Whereas Coleen Rowley, a Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel 
        with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, notified her superiors of 
        critical breakdowns in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's information 
        gathering processes prior to September 11, 2001;
Whereas Special Agent Rowley did so without regard for her career or her 
        prospects for advancement, despite being the sole breadwinner for a 
        family of 6;
Whereas Special Agent Rowley personifies the American tradition of demonstrating 
        integrity and selflessness in the service of our country; and
Whereas Special Agent Rowley's actions serve as an example of principled public 
        service and courageous law enforcement: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends Special Agent 
Coleen Rowley for outstanding performance of her duties.
                                 <all>
```
hospital system or specific provider group sometimes has significant impact on the 

employee population and should be viewed as a substantial change to the plan itself. As a 

guideline, we would suggest any change in the provider network impacting over 50% of , 

the employee population (nationally or locally) should result in a loss ofthe grandfather 

status. 

• 	 Change in issuer or third-party administrator (TP A) (including moving from fully­

insured to self-funded) 


Even ifthe benefit structure of a group health plan remains largely the same, a change in 

administration ofthe plan requires new communication, new processes, and new 

requirements on the part of an employee and the employer. Moving from a fully-insured 

to a self-funded status or changing administrators requires new processes and legal 

agreements for the group health plan. These transitions are not daily or regular events and 

should be considered-a change iIi theOgroup heaiih plan. _... . -- .. 

• 	 Significant change in care management/authorization requirements 

The processes consumers need to follow to receive care are a significant component of 

their perceptions oftheir health benefits plan. Changing notification requirements, 

requiring referrals, or other care management strategies involved in the delivery of care 

should also be considered as a change to the plan. This may prevent group health plans 

from maintaining their grandfather status by not necessarily eliminating a benefit, but 

making it difficult to receive by changing the care management process around it. '" 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PP ACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While we understand 

the difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. This only adds to the uncertainty surrounding the $143 billion in deficit reduction 

projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) when the process began. 

We believe that any changes related to the areas listed above should also result in a loss of 

gr~dfather statu~(ls. th~s~~ 21!ang~s that heavily impacl!!.p~at.ient's_healthc.iif!!ben~fi!S. The!;.... 

Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether a 

group health plan is "in or out." The decisions we make today will determine the outcomes for 

tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create a sustainable health care 

system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means getting as many citizens 

across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and delivering on its promises 

to retain their support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. 

Dr. Eric M. Schiffer 

31166 Grand River Ave 

Farmington, MI. 48322
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 7, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00176

- CR

Isaiah Joe ALCARAZ

, Appe llant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR12197 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant Isaiah Alcaraz entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to which he pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the district clerk filed a copy of the clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea ba rgain agreement. See id. R. 25.2(d). We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part

of the record.” Id

.

Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also supports the trial court’s certification that appellant does not have a right to appeal and/or waived his right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate).

Accordingly, appellant is given notice that this appea l will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by July 7, 2021

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003,order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We

further ORDER the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
§ 98.7 Hearing. ( a ) The examiner shall, within 30 working days of a request for a hearing under § 98.5(b), schedule the hearing for a reasonable time, date, and place. The examiner shall grant any delays or continuances that the examiner determines to be necessary and appropriate for fair resolution of the case, with due regard to the former employee's need for adequate time to prepare a defense and for expeditious resolution of allegations that may be damaging to that former employee's reputation.
( b ) The following rights shall be granted to a former employee who requests a hearing under § 98.5(b): ( 1 ) To represent oneself or to be represented by counsel.
( 2 ) To introduce and examine witnesses and to submit physical evidence.
( 3 ) To confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
( 4 ) To present oral argument.
( 5 ) To obtain a transcript or recording of the hearing on request from the official reporter upon payment of the fees fixed therefor.
( c ) In a hearing under this part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence do not apply. However, the examiner may make such orders and determinations regarding discovery, admissibility of evidence, conduct of examination and cross-examination, and similar matters the examiner deems necessary or appropriate to ensure orderliness in the proceedings and fundamental fairness to the parties.
EXHIBIT 11



                     CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                         AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Computation of Earnings Per Share

                                           Years Ended
                              --------------------------------------
                               December 31  December 31  December 31
                                  1996         1995         1994
                              ------------  -----------  -----------




Computation of share
totals used in computing
earnings per share:

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding
 (Adjusted for stock split
  May 3, 1996)               1,484,789     1,478,922     1,475,523

Primary average shares:

  a - Outstanding            1,484,789     1,478,922     1,475,523

Incremental shares arising
 from oustanding stock
 options:                        12,861       13,140         5,019
                              ---------  ------------  -----------
   b - Totals                 1,497,650    1,492,062     1,480,542

   c - Net Income            10,368,886   12,923,608     8,250,400
                             ----------  -----------  ------------

Net Income Per Share
 Primary - (c/a)             $     6.98   $    8.74    $     5.59
                             ----------  -----------  ------------

Net Income Per Share
 assuming full dilution
  (c/b)                      $     6.98   $    8.66    $     5.57
                             ----------  -----------  -----------
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.1     Computation of pro forma weighted average number of common
                 shares outstanding for the three month and nine month periods
                 ended September 30, 1996 and 1997 (in thousands).


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three Months                       Nine Months
                                                                 Ended September 30,               Ended September 30,
                                                             ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                                1996            1997              1996            1997
                                                             ------------    ------------      ------------   -------------
<S>                                                                <C>             <C>               <C>             <C>  
Number of shares outstanding after the Exchange                    8,929           8,929             8,929           8,929

Employee stock options granted under the 1997
       Incentive Plan                                                644             644               644             644

Shares assumed to be repurchased under the treasury 
       stock method:
       $3,220,485 (1)/$8.00 per share (2)                           (403)           (403)             (403)           (403)

3,000,000 shares issued May 8, 1997                                    -           3,000                 -           1,594

325,000 shares issued May 15, 1997                                     -             325                 -             164
                                                                             ------------
Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                                         12,495
                                                                             ============

                                                             ------------                      ------------   -------------
Pro forma weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                          9,170                             9,170          10,928
                                                             ============                      ============   =============
</TABLE>



Notes:

(1)    Calculated by multiplying employee stock options granted under the 1997 
       Incentive Plan (644,097) by their exercise price ($5.00).

(2)    Initial public offering price.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.9 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Docket: EBSA-2010-0011 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0011-0001 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: EBSA-2010-0011-DRAFT-0004 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-11391 

Submitter Information 

Name: Christine Lundquist M Lundquist 

Address: 

508 Ashmun Street 

Ste 129 

Sault Sainte Marie, 49783 

Email: clundquist@chippewahd.com 

Phone: 906-635-3603 

Organization: Chippewa County Health Department 

General Comment 

Requiring employers, who have been generous enough to pay for family coverage, including 

children up to age 19, to pay for children up to age 26 is an ATROCIOUS BURDEN to small 

employers and non-profits that have been attempting to maintain family coverage for staff under 

very strained financial conditions. 

As the CFO of a small local government organization, I strongly suspect that rather than 

expanding coverage to these additional people, we will be forced to make employees pay for all 

dependent coverage. In the long run, this will cost our employees more. 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: July 21, 2010 

Received: May 20, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80af137f 

Comments Due: August 11, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 7/21/2010
----

(2004/C 84 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments of third-country products that do not comply with current Community rules on product certification and registration. More specifically, this body has instructed those inspectors whose job it is to check on import conditions not to prevent the entry of products from third countries even if problems arise on their arrival in port, such as failure to provide the original copy of the health certificate from the country of origin (a simple faxed copy is accepted).

Inspectors have also received instructions to overlook documentary requirements, such as official recognition of the country of origin as an authorised country — as soon as the product leaves the port and not when it arrives —, the failure to report product defects in writing and within the specified period, a problem that is usually remedied with a sworn declaration by the commercial agent, and a lack of information about the consignment, code, date of manufacture or the surplus of goods etc.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Decision 93/13/EEC (2) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (3)) and Directive 97/78/EC (4):

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the allegations concerning the instructions in question and is continuing its enquiries as to whether the instructions involve conflicts with Community legislation concerning controls on imports.

If, after more detailed study of the allegations, there is any evidence of conflict with Community legal requirements, the Commission will take the matter up with the Spanish authorities. The Commission will contact the Honourable Member when its enquiries are complete.

----

(1)  Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 11 April 2002 concerning remediable deficiencies in goods inspections.

(2)OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(3)OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(4)OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00705

- CV

N. N. and C. P. , Appellant s

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 19

- 008360 , THE HONORABLE C LE VE WESTON DOTY , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant C.P. has filed a n un opposed motion to dismiss her appeal. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal as to C.P. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)(1)

. We direct the Clerk

of this Court to r e s t yle the capt ion o f the i nstant appeal as follows:

N. N. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Ser vices, Appellee

It is ordered on January 6 , 2023

.

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith
U.S. Navy, Bahrain Commit to Advance New Unmanned Systems Efforts
 
  By 5th Fleet Public Affairs - NAVCENT
  During a visit to the U.S. Navy installation in Bahrain, Sept. 23, Bahraini leaders committed to partnering with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) to accelerate integration of new unmanned systems into regional maritime operations.
Major Gen. Ala Abdulla Seyadi, commander of the Bahrain Coast Guard; Rear Adm. Mohammed Yousif Al Asam, commander of the Royal Bahrain Naval Force; and Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of NAVCENT, U.S. 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces discussed future opportunities for cooperation.
"We have an enduring strategic relationship with the Kingdom of Bahrain and our mutual commitment to advancing new unmanned systems demonstrates us strengthening the partnership in a new way," said Cooper. "This initiative enables us to expand maritime domain awareness on, above and below the water and enhance regional deterrence."
NAVCENT commissioned Task Force 59, Sept. 9, to rapidly integrate unmanned systems and artificial intelligence into U.S. 5th Fleet operations and drive discovery in human-machine teaming technologies.
Cooper briefed the Bahraini leaders on NAVCENT’s latest unmanned surface, underwater and aerial vehicles on site at U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain.
In October, Bahrain’s maritime forces will be the first regional partners to collaborate with Task Force 59 on a manned-unmanned teaming exercise to evaluate advanced unmanned surface vessels. The at-sea event will kick off a series of maritime exercises that integrate manned and unmanned systems during operations with regional and coalition partners.
The Middle East region's unique geography, climate, and strategic importance offer an ideal environment for unmanned innovation. The area includes the world's largest standing maritime partnership and three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab-al-Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.