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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 909

To provide for the review and classification of physician assistant positions

in the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 29, 1999

Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. ROCKEFELLER,

and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide for the review and classification of physician

assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF PHYSICIAN

4 ASSISTANT POSITIONS.

5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

6 ‘‘Physician Assistant Equity Act’’.

7 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
2

•S 909 IS

1 (1) the terms ‘‘class’’ and ‘‘class of positions’’

2 have the meanings given such terms under section

3 5102(a)(4) of title 5, United States Code; and

4 (2) the term ‘‘position’’ has the meaning given

5 such term under section 5102(a)(3) of title 5,

6 United States Code.

7 (c) REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION.—Not later than

8 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director

9 of the Office of Personnel Management shall—

10 (1) review the classification of the position of

11 physician assistant, including the factors considered

12 under section 5102(a)(4) (A), (B), and (C) of title

13 5, United States Code;

14 (2) in conducting the review under paragraph

15 (1)—

16 (A) solicit comments from physician assist17 ants and organizations representative of physi18 cian assistants; and

19 (B) give specific consideration to—

20 (i) the private sector qualifications,

21 requirements for practice, compensation,

22 and experience of a physician assistant;

23 and

24 (ii) the educational and practice quali25 fications required for the position of physi-
3

•S 909 IS

1 cian assistant, including national accredita2 tion standards and State licensing require3 ments;

4 (3) reclassify the position of physician assistant

5 in a professional class that is different from the

6 class of positions that include any nurse position or

7 medical technician position; and

8 (4) make any appropriate adjustments in per9 sonnel and pay administration consistent with the

10 review and classification conducted under this sub11 section.

Æ
Exhibit 13.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Garofalo, Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited ("Agnico-Eagle"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Agnico-Eagle for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Agnico-Eagle.

|Toronto, Canada
March 22, 2005 |  | By: | /s/DAVID GAROFALODavid Garofalo Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------------ |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Agnico-Eagle and will be retained by Agnico-Eagle and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### JOHN L. MARKHAM v. W. H. HICKS *&*CO.

*Appeal.*

An appeal will not be entertained where the transcript does not show that the action was properly constituted in the court below.

*{Bradley*v. *Jones, 7G*N. C., 204, cited and approved).

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment rendered at Spring Term, 1884, of Durham Superior Court, by *MoKoy, J.*

*Mr. W. W. Fvtter,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Graham*cfc *Ruffin,*for defendants.

Ashe, J.

This appeal cannot be entertained by this court. It purports to be a case brought up by appeal from a justice’s court to the superior court. Bui there is no record to show that the case was ever constituted in either court. In fact, there is not the semblance of any kind of record.

The case, as presented here, is constituted entirely of two statements of the case on appeal, one signed by counsel, and the *2other by the judge, and a copy of the open account upon which the action is alleged to have been brought. That is all.

The cases on appeal state that the statute of limitations was relied on by the defendants, and a jury trial was waived, and by consent His Honor tried the facts. He decided that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute. That is a question of law. But he failed to find the important fact, when the action was commenced *■*and without that fact being found, or made to appear by the record, it is impossible for this court to decide whether His Honor’s conclusion of law was correct or not.

The case is remanded that the parties may make such disposition of it as they may be advised. *Bradley*v. *Jones,*76 N. C., 204. The costs must be paid by the appellant.

Pee. Curiam. Remanded.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 847

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude clinical social

worker services from coverage under the Medicare skilled nursing facility

prospective payment system.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1999

Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr.

JOHNSON, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. REID, and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude

clinical social worker services from coverage under the

Medicare skilled nursing facility prospective payment system.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Social Work

5 Equity Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 847 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUDING CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES

2 FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE MEDICARE

3 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY PROSPECTIVE

4 PAYMENT SYSTEM AND CONSOLIDATED PAY5 MENT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the

7 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is

8 amended by inserting ‘‘clinical social worker services,’’

9 after ‘‘qualified psychologist services,’’.

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

11 1861(hh)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is

12 amended by striking ‘‘and other than services furnished

13 to an inpatient of a skilled nursing facility which the facil14 ity is required to provide as a requirement for participa15 tion’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section apply as if included in the enactment of sec18 tion 4432(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERBERT WAKEFIELD, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-96-710)

Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 31, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Wakefield, III, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Wakefield, III, appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g),

seeking the return of currency that was seized from him during his

arrest. Wakefield asserts that he is entitled to the return of the

property and he was never notified of any proposed forfeiture of

the money. We review the denial of a motion for the return of

seized property for abuse of discretion. United States v.

Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). A district court

abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise its

discretion, fails “adequately to take into account judicially

recognized factors constraining its exercise” of discretion, or

exercises its discretion based upon “erroneous factual or legal

premises.” James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).

In the present case, the record contains only Wakefield’s

motion, a notation on the docket sheet of the district court’s oral

order denying that motion, Wakefield’s request for a statement of

reasons for the decision, a docket sheet entry of the court’s oral

order denying that request, and the notice of appeal. The district

court’s orders do not express the reason for the denial of the

motion for return of property. Because we cannot discern a basis

for the decision on the sparse record before us, we are unable to

determine whether the district court appropriately exercised its

discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
- 3 -

remand for further proceedings. We deny Wakefield’s motion for

appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 of A.S.V., Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Lemke, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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.


                                        /s/ Gary Lemke
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary Lemke
                                        President
                                        August 14, 2003

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO A.S.V., INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY A.S.V., INC. AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-0308 service document
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                       967
<INVENTORY>                                      2,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,511
<PP&E>                                         124,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,829
<BONDS>                                         11,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,077
<SALES>                                          2,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,650
<CGS>                                            2,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (214)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,125)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,624)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Forum National Investments Ltd. (the "**Company**")on Form 20-F for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Dan Clozza, Principal Executive and I, Martin Tutschek, Principal FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 result of operations of the Company. |

*/s/ Dan Clozza*Dan Clozza, Principal Executive Officer April 26, 2011

*/s/ MartinTutschek*Martin Tutschek, Principal Financial Officer April 26, 2011

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

          - [NARA-2025-007]

# AGENCY:

Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

We are announcing an upcoming National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) meeting in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations.

# DATES:

The meeting will be on November 13, 2024, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. ET.

# ADDRESSES:

This meeting will be a virtual meeting. See supplementary procedures below.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Heather Harris Pagán, ISOO Program Analyst, by telephone at 202.357.5351 or by email at                         *ISOO@nara.gov.*                         Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov*                         and the NISPPAC at                         *NISPPAC@nara.gov.*

      ( print page 88818)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3. The Committee will discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.

*Procedures:*                     Members of the public must register in advance for the virtual meeting through the Intellor link                     *https://events.intellor.com/​?do=​register&​t=​7&​p=​509231*                     if they wish to attend. NISPPAC members, ISOO employees, and speakers should send an email to                     *NISPPAC@nara.gov*                     for the appropriate registration information instead of registering with the above link.                

Merrily Harris,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-25959 Filed 11-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
**EXHIBIT 99**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge andbelief, that:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended October 27, 2002 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  December 2, 2002 |   | /s/  George R. Chapdelaine        |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | George R.  Chapdelaine                 |
|                          |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----

**EXHIBIT 99**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge andbelief, that:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended October 27, 2002 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  December 2, 2002 |   | /s/  Fran Ross      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Fran Ross                |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### James Mills *v.*Luke Huggins.

Tender and refusal are equivalent to a performance. But proof of aJ bility to perform is necessary. As where upon a contract to deliver promissory notes, the defence was, that the plaintiff refused to receive them, and insisted upon a part payment in money, and no evr dence was offered of the defendant’s ability to deliver the notes, it was held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Assumpsit, upon an express contract by the defendant, to receive a quantity of pork from the plaintiff, and to pay the stipulated price in good promissory notes.

*Plea*— non assumpsit.

The plaintiff having made out his case, the defendant proved, that after the delivery of the pork, he offered to pay the price in notes, which the plaintiff refused, insisting upon having some cash with them.

His Honor Judge .Strange charged the jury, that ability as well as willingness in the defendant, at the time of making the offer, was essential to his defence, and that unless they were satisfied that at the time of making the offer, the defendant had the notes in his possession, and was willing and ready to deliver them, they ought to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

*J. H. Bryan*for the defendant.

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.

Henderson, Chief-Justice

Ordinarily, nothing' less than actual performance satisfies an engagement to do an act. But in acts which require the concurrence of both parties, if one party does all he can to perform his engagement, and the act remains undone, merely for the want of the concurrence of the other party, the party doing all in his power is entitled to the benefit of an actual performance. I speak not now of the *semper paratus,*and the *profert hie in curia.*They arc incidental to some, and not to all engagements. It must therefore be the non-concurrence of the other party *59Which discharges the defendant from the actual perform-anee. If one person is bound to pay money, or deliver a horse to another, and that other will not receive it *when offered,*the pai’ty making the offer is excused *ex necessitate*from an actual performance. As one party may by acts, such as a refusal to receive, prevent the other from performing, so he may, by words, discharge him ; as by saying, when a tender is about being made, *is*it is needless to offer, for I will not receive it,” or similar expressions. There, if performance was prevented by such declarations, it will be excused. But in order to this, an actual ability at the timé must appeal’. For otherwise, the performance was not' prevented by the declaration. In'this light it was viewed by the presiding judge. Therefore, there is no error in the case. The defendant was not *hindered*by the plaintiff.

PER CuRIAM. — JUDGMENT awiumeb,
August 8, 2016

Mr. Brendan Powers

Powers Flight Group Sprayer
P.O. Box 14871
Bradenton

, FL 34280

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 4932

Dear Mr. Powers :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst