alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
Health Insurance Regulation: Wide Variation in States' Authority,
Oversight, and Resources (Letter Report, 12/27/93, GAO/HRD-94-26).

Although state insurance departments are responsible for overseeing
health insurers and protecting consumers, their authority extends over
only part of the market and varies widely among states. Moreover, more
and more states have elected to self-insure their health plans under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, thereby avoiding state
regulation.  About 24 percent of health care is now paid for by private
health insurance that is regulated by state insurance departments.
Although the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has tried
to establish a uniform, nationwide system of insurance regulation, it
has no authority to require states to adopt its model policies; this
responsibility falls to state legislatures.  The resources that state
legislatures allocate to their insurance departments and the proportion
that the departments dedicate to regulating health insurance also vary
widely among states.  State insurance departments work to protect
consumers from insurer failures, unfair policy provisions, excessive
premiums, and unscrupulous business practices--any of which could
financially devastate policyholders. GAO found wide variations in the
practices and the procedures that states use to monitor insurer
solvency, approve health insurance premium rates and policy forms, and
respond to consumer complaints. As Congress reviews the various
proposals for health care reform, it needs to consider what role, if
any, state insurance departments will play in enforcing new requirements
that may be imposed on health insurers.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-26
     TITLE:  Health Insurance Regulation: Wide Variation in States' 
             Authority, Oversight, and Resources
      DATE:  12/27/93
   SUBJECT:  Health insurance
             Health insurance cost control
             Insurance regulation
             Human resources utilization
             Consumer protection
             State-administered programs
             Insurance companies
             State governments
             Financial management
             Insurance premiums
IDENTIFIER:  California
             Colorado
             Illinois
             New York
             Texas
             Vermont
             Virginia
             Medicare Program
             Medicaid Program
             National Health Care Reform Initiative
             Clinton Health Care Plan
             Health Security Act
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 102 Unemployed Number in thousands 70 to 74 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU03024941Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 70-74 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:10:13 PM)
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2005

The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Joseph J. BouffardName:

Joseph J.BouffardTitle:

PresidentBy:

/s/ Bonnie M. KleinName:

Bonnie M. KleinTitle:

Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Date: February 13, 2007
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01389-CV 

STEPHEN HOLLOWAY AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant 

V. 

PINWELL INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-04637-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

We reinstate this appeal. In 2014, we abated this case due to bankruptcy. See 

TEX.R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public 

Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which shows the bankruptcy 

case associated with this appeal was terminated on June 1, 2018, effectively 

dissolving the automatic stay. 

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status 

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would 

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To 

date, neither party has responded. 
 –2– 

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for 

publication). 

131389F.P05 

 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

STEPHEN HOLLOWAY AND ALL 

OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01389-CV V. 

PINWELL INVESTMENTS LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-04637-

C. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Schenck. Justices Reichek and 

Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered May 11, 2021
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:2009-NM-001-AD. Label Related AD 2006-07-12
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     
 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 omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions set forth
in SEC Release No. 34-47986]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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any changes 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
   
 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; andb)
    
    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.
 /s/ Jack A. HockemaDate:
March 30, 2006Jack A. HockemaChief Executive Officer
DRAFT

ID

Simple or

Special Name Type Description Error Message 

114 SPECIAL

Prohibited Use of USSGL Account 411910 on No-Year TAS Compound

No-Year TAS (Authority Duration Code "X") are not permitted to report USSGL account 411910. This TAS is not permitted to report USS

115 SPECIAL

USSGL Accounts Restricted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TAS Compound

Some USSGL accounts are restricted to specific TAS for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This TAS is not permitted to reported soaccounts. 

116 SPECIAL

USSGL accounts Restricted to Department of Transportation Compound

Some USSGL accounts are for Department of Transportation use only. This TAS is not permitted to report som

117 SPECIAL

Restricted to U.S. Department of Agriculture Compound

Some USSGL accounts are restricted to specific TAS for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This TAS is not permitted to report som

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Part 2SUPPLEMENT

Bulletin No. 2021-07 DRAFT VII VSR - 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DIANE M. FRIEND : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

SUBURBAN WOODS NURSING HOME :

LLC t/a SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH :

& REHABILITATION CENTERS : NO. 02-CV-4464

NOTICE

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2002, the Honorable Berle M. Schiller has

scheduled oral argument for Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 8:30 A.M. in Courtroom 5C. 

Counsel shall address the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon

which Relief Can Be Granted and Defendant’s Notice of Removal.

______________________________

Patricia A. Callahan

Deputy Clerk to

Honorable Berle M. Schiller

Case 2:02-cv-04464-BMS Document 6 Filed 08/29/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

June 20, 1940

No. 43984.

#### Protests 628377-G, etc., of Atkinson, Haserick & Co. et al. (Boston and New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

From the testimony it was found that the length of the staple was determined according to the method as outlined in *United States*v. *General Rubber Co.*(22 C. C. P. A. 308, T. D. 47350). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1662 was sustained as to certain bales.
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

249) OGRC-S0040 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:33 PM Sheet 249 of 259 
P.2 

ST-T BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017:10-31-90 ; 5M3PM 7038214784- 202 252 0090:# 1 

OG-RC-SOO^O 

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP 

8400 WESTPARK DRIVE 

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 

PLEASE DELIVER THIS SHEET WITH MESSAGE 

COVER SHEET PLUS ir PAGES 

TO: US ePA 

FAX NO: *0?~?l/53 

NAME: 3&*^ip~ Zfrfs^^yfr 

TEL NO: 3 0 f- yV^ 9 

FROM: Srj/d 

FAX MO: (7Q3 \ 821-478 4 

TEL WO: <&•?'***•/79 

MESSAGE: -7i^tf .ftyjUXs^^ £*^*JLr*j^. //^Ar*W-- / (**** j&A-J ^ 

^OQJL rUri^iM^ Aj^Alrtf 7/ 

URGENT 

NORMAL DELIVERY 

/nM^K>(/€^4 &U6+«f £' F^i 

DATE BEMTt /O'h/ 

TIME SENT: _ 

SENT BY»
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. ROMERO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0459 MCE CMK P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On June 13, 2005 petitioner filed an application to hold his federal habeas petition

in abeyance pending the exhaustion of any potential state court claims. On July 1, 2005,

respondents filed an opposition to petitioner request. Petitioner is hereby granted twenty days

from the date of this order to file a response, if any, to respondents’ opposition.

DATED: July 7, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 17 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 1
|   | •      •      •      ••  | $145,000 for each      non-employee director;$20,000 for the Lead      Independent Director of the Board;      $13,500 for the      Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board;      $3,500 for each      member of the Audit Committee of the Board other than the Chairperson; and      $5,000 for the      Chairperson of each of the Compensation and Personnel Committee, the      Nominating and Governance Committee, and the Nuclear, Health and Safety      Committee of the      Board. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Nathalene L. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; William J. Henderson, Postmaster, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-4053.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 11, 2001.

Before KENNEDY, SILER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

Nathalene L. Lee, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals a district court judgment dismissing her civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VTI). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary relief, Lee sued the United States Postal Service and the United States Postmaster, William Henderson, *323contending that she was subjected to race and sex discrimination. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to the postal service and Henderson.

In her timely appeal, Lee argues that summary judgment should not have been granted for the defendants and that the district court ignored her 1,500 pages of evidence.

We review the district court’s judgment de novo. *See Summer ex rel. Summar v. Bennett,*157 F.3d 1054, 1057 (6th Cir.1998).

Upon review, we affirm the district court’s judgment. As the district court noted, most of Lee’s discrimination claims contained in her multiple Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints are time barred. However, Lee’s final claim contained in her fourth EEO complaint regarding her supervisor’s file on Lee’s leave history was properly before the court. Despite being a reviewable allegation, Lee provided no evidence that the file was racially motivated or adversely impaired her employment. Mere eonclusory allegations of discrimination are insufficient to state a claim under Title VII. *Allen v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrs.,*165 F.3d 405, 413 (6th Cir.1999).

Further, the allegations contained in Lee’s sixth EEO complaint were also properly before the district court. In that complaint, Lee stated that she was improperly suspended and cited another individual as a comparative employee to establish a Title VII claim. However, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, an individual must show membership in a protected group, that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee who was not a member of a protected group. *See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The individual Lee cited was, in fact, treated exactly the same as Lee. Thus, Lee failed to show that she was treated differently from any individual in a non-protected group.

Finally, Lee contends that her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) were violated. However, the facts establish that she was not denied any leave for any medical condition. As Lee was never denied time off from work, she has failed to establish a violation of the FMLA.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
APPENDIX B-1

2011 Nonpoint Source Annual Inventory

Provided in Electronic Form Only

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sun Tze Whang, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Interdyne Company;

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;

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;

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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;

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

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

The  registrant's  other certifying  officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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.

Dated: September 12, 2008

                                        By:  /s/ Sun Tze Whang
                                                Sun Tze Whang
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                       15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAFAR AFSHAR,

NO. CIV. S-04-1088 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and SHERIFF

LOU BLANAS, individually and in his

official capacity as Sheriff of the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing on this case was scheduled for October 24, 2005, at

10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court pursuant

to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 78-230(c)

for the Eastern District of California specifies that an opposition

or statement of non-opposition to the granting of the motion shall

be in writing and shall be served and filed not less than fourteen

(14) days prior to the hearing. Plaintiff has failed to file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 65 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiff, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing not later than ten (10) days from the effective date of

this order why sanctions should not issue in the above-captioned

case in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) as required

by Local Rule 11-110 for failure to file a timely opposition in

accordance with Local Rule 78-230, unless that party timely files

a written Statement of No Opposition. Hearing shall be held on the

Order to Show Cause at the time of hearing on this motion. 

2. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment presently

before the court is CONTINUED to November 7, 2005, where it will

be called on the court’s regularly scheduled Law and Motion

Calendar, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to file and serve the

opposition no later than October 24, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 65 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2
Aug 17 2010

Mr. Richard D. Blosser 3037 Lakeview Terrace Fullerton, CA 92835

Dear Mr. Blosser This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for reconsideration from § 61.303(b)(2), Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R). It explains why we cannot process your request. Why We Cannot Process Your RequestWe entered your June 14, 2010, petition for reconsideration into the public docket (No. FAA2008-1223), but we are unable to process your reque st any further. Again, the information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.101 (copy enclosed). For us to consider your petition, you must show the following:

 That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not present it in your original petition.

 That we made an important factual error in our denial of your original petition; or

 That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent. In your letter, you stated your belief that we have made a factual error in our determination of public interest. You maintain that documented past volunteer pilot services in support of local law enforcement actions is evidence of public interest. However, the purpose of your request to be exempted from aviation medical standards and be allowed to exercise pilot privileges with a known disqualifying medical condition is incompatible with aviation safety. Therefore, your intent to volunteer pilot services does not constitute a fact relevant to either your airman medical qualifications or the broader public interest of requiring that pilots be medically qualified in order to maintain the safety of the national air space. Therefore, no further action will be taken on your petition and the docket will be closed. Sincerely,

/s/ Dr. Frederick E. Tilton Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure