alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
124 STAT. 4 PUBLIC LAW 111–127—JAN. 27, 2010 

Public Law 111–127 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority for increased 

fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to United States citizens 

returned from foreign countries, to provide necessary funding to avoid shortfalls 

in the Medicare cost-sharing program for low-income qualifying individuals, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Aid to American 

Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act’’. 

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 

RETURNED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

Section 1113(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1313(d)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘September, 30, 2003’’ and all that follows 

and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2009, except that, in the case of 

fiscal year 2010, the total amount of such assistance provided 

during that fiscal year shall not exceed $25,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 3. QI PROGRAM FUNDING. 

Section 1933(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u– 

3(g)(2)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (M), by striking ‘‘$412,500,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$462,500,000’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (N), by striking ‘‘$150,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$165,000,000’’. 

Emergency Aid 

to American 

Survivors of 

the Haiti 

Earthquake Act. 

42 USC 1305 

note. 

Jan. 27, 2010 

[S. 2949] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 111–127—JAN. 27, 2010 124 STAT. 5 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2949: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Jan. 25, considered and passed Senate. 

Jan. 26, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND. 

Section 1941(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396w–1(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’. 

Approved January 27, 2010. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21014]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Working Group Studying Soft Dollar Arrangements and Commission 
Recapture: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefits 
Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a 
public meeting will be held September 17 of the Advisory Council on 
Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group formed to 
study Soft Dollar Arrangements and Commission Recapture.
    The session will take place in Room N-5437 A&B, U.S. Department of 
Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. 
to approximately noon, is to conclude the taking of testimony from 
members of the financial community discussing their views on soft 
dollar and directed brokerage practices.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to any topic concerning ERISA by submitting 20 copies on or 
before September 7, 1997, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, 
ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. Individuals or 
representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group 
on Soft Dollar Arrangements and Commission Recapture should forward 
their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. 
Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended 
statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with 
disabilities, who need special accommodations, should contact Sharon 
Morrissey by September 7, at the address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before September 7.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 4th day of August 1997.
Olena Berg,
Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-21014 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #9 Ltd. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Nancy J. McGurk, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(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 Company.

| | By: | /s/Nancy J. McGurk
| | --- | ------------------

| | Name: | Nancy J. McGurk
| | ----- | ---------------

| | Title: | Chief Financial
              Officer of the Managing General Partner
| | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Date: | November 15, 2004
| | ----- | -----------------
#### Philip J. CHILLEMI, d/b/a Phil Chillemi & Associates Real Estate, Appellant, v. Jasper C. ROSE, Appellee.

Nos. 77-748, 77-749.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

Hal H. McCaghren of McCaghren Law Offices, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*93Michael J. Monchick of Bernstein, Sharff & Monchick, West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The two orders appealed from here are predicated upon orders previously appealed and reversed by this court. *Chillemi*v. *Rose,*352 So.2d 92, 4th DCA No. 77-526 and 77-527, opinion issued August 9, 1977. Accordingly, the two orders of April 6, 1977 entered by the trial court are reversed.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and AN-STEAD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21069]



[[Page 42971]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-153-005]


Granite State Gas Transmission Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 1, 1997, Granite State Gas Transmission, 
Inc. (Granite State) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed below 
for effectiveness on September 1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 215
Third Revised Sheet No. 289.

    According to Granite State, the foregoing revised tariff sheets are 
submitted in further compliance with the requirements of Order Nos. 
587, et seq., adopting Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) procedures 
for pipeline operating practices. Granite State further states that the 
revised tariff sheets adopt additional GISB standards for its 
operations in compliance with letter orders issued by the Director of 
the Office of Pipeline Regulation on May 20 and June 26, 1997 with 
respect to prior tariff filings and are proposed to become effective 
September 1, 1997 because of an extension which Granite State was 
granted to comply with certain GISB standards.
    Granite State states that copies of its filing were served on its 
firm and interruptible customers, the regulatory agencies of the states 
of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and the intervenor in Docket 
No. RP97-137-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21069 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

----

| 1.  | The      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended; and |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.    | The      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the LP. |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May      12,      2010                                                                            |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                         |   |   |
| /s/      Anthony J. Branca                                                                                   |   |   |
| Anthony      J. Branca                                                                                       |   |   |
| Chief      Financial OfficerICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight BL.P. |
No. 00-6589.

#### Mensah *v.*Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board of Pennsylvania (Norrell Temp Agency).

Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 99-6233.

#### Miller *v.*Kaloroumakis, Administrator, Eastern Correctional Institution, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Roe*v. *Flores-Ortega, ante,*p. 470.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                          21,777
<SECURITIES>                                     8,170
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                     21,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,936
<PP&E>                                          31,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,065
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,190
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,196
<SALES>                                         88,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,850
<CGS>                                           60,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (784)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Erwin WILLIS and Rebecca Willis.

No. 60212.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 11, 1977.

In re: Erwin Willis and Rebecca Willis, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Exhibit
10.2


 


 


Summary
of Director Compensation Arrangements


 


We currently pay each
director who is not employed by us or any of our affiliates (i.e., all of our
directors except for our Chairman, Frank F. Khulusi) a quarterly retainer of
$7,000, plus $2,500 for each regular board meeting attended in person or
telephonically, $1,000 for each special board meeting attended in person or
telephonically and $1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person or
telephonically. We also pay the chairperson of the Audit Committee of our Board
of Directors an additional quarterly retainer of $3,125 and the chairperson of
the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors an additional quarterly
retainer of $1,250 for serving in such capacities. Directors who are employed
by us or any of our affiliates are not paid any additional compensation for
their service on our Board of Directors. We reimburse each of our directors for
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur in connection with attending
board or committee meetings. We have entered into indemnification agreements, a
form of which is attached as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2006, with each of our directors.


 


Our directors are also
eligible to participate in our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, which is
administered by our Compensation Committee under authority delegated by our
Board of Directors. The terms and conditions of option and stock bonus grants
to our non-employee directors under our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended,
are determined in the discretion of our Compensation Committee, and must be
consistent with the terms of the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, which
is filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006.


 


The compensation
arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified from
time to time by our Board of Directors.
No. 00-6576.

#### Jenkins *v.*Smith, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 99-7597.

#### Williams *v.*Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James E. PICKENS et al. v. BEAUREGARD PARISH POLICE JURY et al.

No. 60322.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: James E. Pickens et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Beauregard. 346 So.2d 1380.

Writ denied.
# C_2015118EN.01000901.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

(Case C-567/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Mortgage loan agreement - Arbitration clause - Unfairness - Action by consumer - National procedural rule - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract))

(2015/C 118/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

Applicants:

Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national procedural rule pursuant to which a local court which has jurisdiction to rule on an action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract does not have jurisdiction to hear an application by the consumer for a declaration of unfairness of contract terms in the same contract, unless declining jurisdiction by the local court gives rise to procedural difficulties that would make the exercise of the rights conferred on consumers by the European Union legal order excessively difficult. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

1

---
From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:39 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney; Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Elman, Barry 

Subject: Re: 111d RIA Responses to OMB Comments, Revised RIA Executive Summary and 

Revised Chapter 3 

I will check with Howard to see if we've gotten enough on our own. 

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:35:58 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: 111d RIA Responses to OMB Comments, Revised RIA Executive Summary and 

Revised Chapter 3 

HI Bob, 

If you all think it’s necessary, I can set it up. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 6:27 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry 

Subject: Re: 111d RIA Responses to OMB Comments, Revised RIA Executive Summary and 

Revised Chapter 3 

Cortney - 

Do we still need a discussion. With Treasury on EPact? If yes please se.d me some times. 

thanx! 

bob 
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. 

From: Higgins, Cortney 

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 12:50 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Re: 111d RIA Responses to OMB Comments, Revised RIA Executive Summary and 

Revised Chapter 3 

Thanks Kevin! 

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:43 AM Eastern Standard Time 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj <Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov> 

Subject: FW: 111d RIA Responses to OMB Comments, Revised RIA Executive Summary and 

Revised Chapter 3 

Cortney, 

Per our discussion yesterday, here is a shot at the RIA stuff addressing costs of EE as well as the 

rest of our responses. Per our discussion, we are happy to continue to work with you on the EE 

cost language and I think there is also a potential path on the AQ modeling that I'm happy to 

discuss (either Tuesday, or if you want to talk earlier, I can make time). 

- Kevin 

<< E O 12866 Exec_summary_05_23_14 final.docx >> 

<< E O 12866 Chapter_3_Cost_Economic_Energy_Impacts_5_23_14 final.docx >> 

<< EO 12866 EPA Response to Interagency OMB Comments 052314 final .docx >>
P. 1



# RCRA Box 321 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 256 ) OGRC-S0042. A Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/20073:36:33 PM

Sheet 256 of 259I I tiuii r 

# r P. 2 

# OGRC-Soew:?.f

t

UI C INFORMATIO

N- CRUD E OI L RECLAIMER S Jef f Smit h(EP

AOffic e o f Drinking Water , UI C Section ) provide d the attache d number s o n th e thre e type s o f undergroun d injectio n well s include d in the Clas s I I universe . Disposa l well s ar e use d fo r th e disposa l o f brine s (produce d waters ) an d ar e usuall yno t drille d int o th e producing formation . Enhance d recoverywells , o n th e othe r hand , ar e locate d i n th e producin g formation , wher e wate r i s reinjecte d t o maintai n pressure . Storag e well s ar e use d fo r th

e storag e o f hydrocarbon s tha t ar e liqui d a t standar d temperatur e an d pressure . Ther e ar e veryfewstorag e well s i n the country(nine) , bu t quit e a few brin e disposa l well s (28,333 ) an d enhance d recover

ywell s (124,776) . Th e number s provide d includ e number s fro mbot hauthorize d State s an d so-calle d "direc t implementation " States , wher e EP Aha s primacy . Jef f explaine d tha t th e number s do no t reflec t totall yabandone d wells , whic hma yo r ma yno t b e plugged . The percentag e o f plugge d vs . ope n abandone d well s i s no t known . The number s i n th

e char t do , however , includ e temporaril yabandone d "shut-in " wells , whic har e well s stil l capabl e o f injectio n bu t ar e shut-i n fo r eithe r economi c reason s o r becaus e thei r structura l integrit yi s unsound . H e explaine d furthermor e tha t statistic s regarding waste s receive d fro m reclaimer s vs . wast e fro mprimar

yproductio n field s ar e no t available . H e remarke d tha t individua l Stat e inspector s ma yb e familia r enoughwit hthei r assigne d territoryt o provid e som e estimat e o f the breakdown . Finally , h e explaine d tha t ga s storag e well s ar e maintaine d b ythe pipeline s industry , an d ar e no t regulate d a t al l b yEPA .