alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COVID-19 Guidance for Rideshare, Taxi,

and Car Service Workers

OSHA is committed to protecting the health and safety of America’s workers and workplaces 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency is issuing a series of industry-specific alerts designed 

to help keep workers safe.

Take the following steps to reduce risk of exposure to the coronavirus for workers in the 

rideshare, taxi, and car services industry.

 Instruct sick drivers to stay home.

 Ensure vehicle door handles and inside surfaces are routinely cleaned and disinfected. Provide 

drivers with disinfectants and cleaning supplies.

 Advise drivers to lower vehicle windows to increase airflow.

 Provide and have all workers wear face coverings (i.e., cloth face coverings or surgical masks) 

that have at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric. Face coverings should be 

provided at no cost to workers.

 Require all vehicle occupants and customers to wear face coverings and follow

CDC requirements for face coverings on public transit.

 Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizers containing at least 60 percent ethanol and 70% 

isopropanol for both drivers and customers.

 Limit the number of passengers drivers can transport at a single time, and install plexiglass 

partitions between driver and passenger compartments. 

 Ensure policies encourage drivers to report any safety and health concerns.

For the latest guidance and other resources on protecting workers from coronavirus, visit OSHA’s 

Protecting Workers Guidance.

OSHA issues alerts to draw attention to 

worker safety and health issues and solutions.

 • osha.gov/coronavirus • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • @OSHA_DOL

OSHA 4021-03R 2021
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 June 2005

(2005/C 149/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 13, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00562-CV

IN RE C.D., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-00064

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 1, 2022, relator C. D. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sonya L. Heath, presiding 

judge of the 310th District Court of Harris County, to perform her ministerial duty 

and grant the nonsuit of relator’s claims in the modification proceeding. 
2

Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
#### CHARLES HENSON *vs.*ROBERT KING.

Evidence given before a jury, *to*contradict a witness, and which is only competent for that purpose, ought not to be left to them by the Court as tending to establish the main allegations of the issue.

ACTION ON THE CASE for A FALSE WARRANTY and for a DECEIT, tried before his Honor Judge Saundees, at the last Superior Court of Cabarrus.

*Wilson,*for plaintiff.

*JBa/rrmger,*for defendant.

Nash, O. J.

The action is in case for a false warranty, and a fraud, in the sale of a horse. No exception is taken as to the principles of law governing the case, as by the Court stated to the jury; but the exception is to the charge upon the evidence. The fraud alleged against the defendant was, that the eyes of the horse transferred by him to the plaintiff, were unsound within his knowledge, at the time of the sale. Most of the controversy turned upon the *scienter.*The defendant introduced a witness by the name of Black, who swore that the defendant sent him for the horse when he first traded for her, that he brought her home on Saturday, and defendant sold her *386to plaintiff on the following Monday, and that he, witness, did not believe her eyes were unsound. He was then asked by the plaintiff’s counsel if he had not, on a certain occasion, said to one Weddington, that he (witness) had advised the defendant to sell the mare, because he thought her eyes unsound — that the defendant asked $125, and he advised him to take $100 ?”■ The witness stated he recollected having no such conversation. Weddington was then called by the plaintiff, who swore that Black had told him, he had advised the. defendant to sell the mare, because her eyes were not good; that the- defendant asked for her $125, and he advised him.to take $100. Black being called back, reiterated his former statement, and that he never had any such conversation with Wed-dingfon; that he never told the defendant that the mare’s eyes were defective: that he had never believed they were.

In commenting on this testimony after stating it to the jury, his Honor observes, “ these witnesses being admitted to be respectable, it was the duty of the jury to reconcile the testimony if they could:, the one swore *affirmatively*to the fact of the conversation, the other *negatively,*that he had no recollection of it. The Court then leaves the testimony of .these witnesses, without directing the attention of the jury to the legitimate effect of the discrepancy. The only effect the testimony of Weddington could properly have, was to discredit Black, but it was no evidence in itself to show that the defendant knew of the unsoundness of the horse’s eyes, and the charge places it before the jury as evidence upon the point in issue. Stated as it was, it must have misled the jury: for, take away the testimony of Weddington, and there .is none to show that the defendant knew that the eyes of the mare were unsound, if the fact were so. The jury, therefore, .were misdirected as to the effect of the testimony of Weddington, and for this error there must be a *.venwe de novo.*

Per Curiam:. Judgment reversed.
Exhibit 15.03

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-10, as amended (File No. 333-120043) of
our report dated February 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited as of December 31, 2004 which reports appear in the December 31,
2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited.

|Toronto, Canada   |  | ERNST & YOUNG LLP    
|----------------- |  | ---------------------
|February 22, 2005 |  | Chartered Accountants

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          EARMARK DECLARATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAVE WELDON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 20, 2008

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican 
Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following 
information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding 
earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009:
  Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15).
  Bill Number: H.R. 2638.
  Account: DOD, Procurement--Defense Wide.
  Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Soneticom Inc.
  Address of Requesting Entity: 1045 John Rodes Blvd., West Melbourne, 
FL 32904.
  Description of Request: FeC was built to autonomously identify, 
capture and accurately geo-locate RF Signals of Interest (SOI) used by 
our enemies. Initial test deployments have provided relevant field 
information that cannot be easily derived from any other source. This 
has generated an immediate tactical field need for FeC systems.

                          ____________________
```
#### J. H. FAISON and others v. WARREN JOHNSON.

*Practiee*— Appeal *from Justice’s Court*— Amendment *of Pleadings,*

*■*Where in an action brought by appeal to the Superior Court from a Justice’s Court, the defendant alleged that Ills written answer filed' in the Justice’s Court was lost, and the Court thereupon remanded the case to the Justice with leave to perfect the pleadings ; *Held,*to be error; in such cases the Court had the power, and it was its duty to perfect the pleadings and proceed with the trial.

*(Adams*v. *Reeves,*76 N. 0. 412, cited and distinguished.)

Appeal from an Order made at Eall Term, 1877, of SampsoN Superior Court, by *Moore, J.*

The action in which the order was made, was commenced before a Justice of the Peace to recover $100, and upon the •suggestion of the defendant that the title to real estate was involved, therein, the Justice dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. When the case was called for trial the defendant stated that his answer filed in writing before the Justice, had been lost, and the plaintiff denied that such answer had been filed. Whereupon His Honor ordered that the case be remanded to the Justice with leave to perfect the pleadings, from which order the plaintiffs appealed.

*Messrs. J. L. Stewart*and *Battle Mordeeai,*for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. Kerr Kerr,*for defendant.

Faircloth, J.

The Justice of the Peace adjudged that he had not jurisdiction of the action, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court. In that Court the defendant alleged that his written answer filed in the lower Court had been lost or destroyed, and thereupon His Honor remanded the case to the Justice with permission to perfect the pleadings. This was error. His Honor had the power, *79and it was his duty, under the liberal provisions of the ■Code, to perfect the pleadings and proceed with the trial. The case of *Adams*v. *Reeves,*76 N. C. 412, has no application. The present is a case of supplying lost papers and mot of amending the record.

Error.

Pee, CuRiAM. . Judgment reversed.
DENIED and Opinion Filed May 27, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00368-CV

No. 05-22-00369-CV

No. 05-22-00378-CV

IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND, Relator

Original Proceedings from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 31608-422, 31609-422 & 31610-422

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Howard Holland has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel 

the trial court to rule on two motions he represents he filed on January 7, 2022. We 

deny the petition.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in 

that it is not properly certified and is not supported by a record of certified or sworn 

documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler, 270 

S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also TEX.CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001 (describing how inmate may authenticate 

documents as sworn copies).
–2–

Furthermore, even if relator had filed a complying petition, he has not shown 

the trial court has had a reasonable time to rule upon the motions. See In re Blakeney, 

254 S.W.3d 659, 661–62 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (no 

mandamus relief absent proof motion was filed, presented to the trial court with a 

request for a ruling, and trial court given reasonable time to issue ruling); In re 

Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam) (mandamus relief not available until trial court has had reasonable 

opportunity to rule on motion). In this case, relator asserts he filed his motions on 

January 7, 2022, reminded the trial court that they were pending by letter dated 

March 7, 2022, and filed his petition seeking mandamus relief on April 20, 2022. 

Even assuming the truth of relator’s assertions, we cannot conclude relator has 

shown he is entitled to mandamus relief after such a short period of time.

We deny relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

220368f.p05

220369f.p05

220378f.p05

/Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       TRIBUTE TO JO PRICE CRAVEN

 Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Ms. Jo 
Price Craven, principal of Piner Elementary School in Morning City, KY. 
Ms. Jo Price Craven was recently honored by the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals as one of the recipients of the 2008 
National Distinguished Principals Award.
  The National Distinguished Principals Program was established in 1984 
as an annual event to honor exemplary elementary school principals who 
set the pace, character, and quality of the education children receive 
during their early school years. One principal is chosen from each of 
the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and this year Ms. Jo Price 
Craven has been selected as a National Distinguished Principal from the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  Throughout her time at Piner Elementary School, Principal Jo Price 
Craven has displayed herself to be an example of excellence in primary 
education. Her educational philosophy fosters a school environment that 
is considerate and challenging to allow teachers at Piner Elementary to 
mobilize and enhance student performance.
  Kentuckians are extremely proud of Ms. Jo Price Craven. I am honored 
to pay tribute to her, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
wishing Principal Craven continued success as she continues her 
exceptional work in education.

                          ____________________
```
# Official Journal C 180A/2 Au

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 180A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 492 August 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 180A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 492 August 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2006/C 180A/1 | | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2006/C 180A/1

1

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2006/C 180A/2 | Vacancy in the Directorate-General Legal Services — Legal Counsel | 3 |

III   Notices

European Central Bank

2006/C 180A/2

Vacancy in the Directorate-General Legal Services — Legal Counsel

3

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

2.8.2006

| 2.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 180/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 180/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---

III Notices

European Central Bank

| 2.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 180/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 180/3

---

VACANCY IN THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES — LEGAL COUNSEL

(2006/C 180 A/01)

The European Central Bank is seeking applications to fill the position of a Legal Counsel in the Directorate General Legal-Services. More details on the profile and tasks covered in this position, as well as information on how to apply can be obtained on the ECB's website at www.ecb.int (Job opportunities).

---
attestationh1416.htm


Back to Form 8-K


Exhibit 10.10










Medicare Advantage Attestation of Benefit Plan


 





HARMONY HEALTH PLAN OF ILLINOIS, INC.


 





H1416







 


I attest that I have examined the Plan Benefit Packages (PBPs) identified below and that the benefits identified in the PBPs are those that the above-stated organization will make available to eligible beneficiaries in the approved service area during program year 2011. I further attest that we have reviewed the bid pricing tools (BPTs) with the certifying actuary and have determined them to be consistent with the PBPs being attested to here.







 


I further attest that these benefits will be offered in accordance with all applicable Medicare program authorizing statutes and regulations and program guidance that CMS has issued to date and will issue during the remainder of 2010 and 2011, including but not limited to, the 2011 Call Letter, the 2011 Solicitations for New Contract Applicants, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, the Medicare Managed Care Manual, and the CMS memoranda issued through the Health Plan Management System (HPMS).










	
Plan


ID

	
Segment


ID

	
Version

	
Plan Name

	
Plan


Type

	
Transaction  


Type

	
MA


Premium

	
Part D


Premium

	
CMS 


Approval 


Date

	
Effective


Date


	
007

	
0

	
5

	
WellCare Access (HMO SNP)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
15.10

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011


	
009

	
0

	
5

	
WellCare Value (HMO -POS)

	
HMOPOS

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011


	
018

	
0

	
6

	
WellCare Value (HMO -POS)

	
HMOPOS

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011


	
019

	
0

	
5

	
WellCare Rx (HMO)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
28.70

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011


	
022

	
0

	
6

	
WellCare Dividend (HMO)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011







 


H1416










  





  











  
















	
Thomas Tran

	  	
9/2/2010 7:57:07 AM


	  	  	 	  
	  	  	  
	
Contracting Official Name

	
Date


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
 

	
125 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2600


	 
HARMONY HEALTH PLAN OF ILLINOIS, INC.

	  	
CHICAGO, IL 606064402


	  	  	 	  
	  	  	 	  
	
Organization

	
Address


	  	  	  







H1416
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 8, 2015

No. 04-15-00082-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.C.,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00544

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND 
  THE RULES AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 
            RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Ms. SUTTON, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 110-908) on the resolution (H. Res. 1526) providing 
for consideration of motions to suspend the rules and waiving a 
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration 
of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________
```
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 360 

Congratulating the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

on the celebration of its 100th anniversary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. SASSE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on the celebration of its 100th 

anniversary. 

Whereas the National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘NASDA’’) 

was established in 1916 to provide a cohesive, sciencebased voice for State perspectives in discussions on national agriculture policy issues; 

Whereas the first meeting of NASDA was held on May 4, 

1916, in the hearing room of the Committee on Court of 

Claims of the Senate; 

Whereas since 1916, NASDA has provided exemplary nonpartisan representation of the departments of agriculture 

in all 50 States and 4 United States territories in order 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 360 ATS 

to promote sound public policy and programs in support 

of United States agriculture; 

Whereas NASDA has become a national leader in growing 

and enhancing agriculture through the forging of partnerships to achieve sound policy outcomes among State 

departments of agriculture, the Federal Government, and 

stakeholders; 

Whereas NASDA has successfully amplified the voices of all 

State departments of agriculture by achieving consensus 

on a breadth of issues, including food safety, agriculture 

labor, international trade, and the environment; and 

Whereas 1 century later, NASDA continues its deep commitment to promoting the interests of the farmers and 

ranchers of the United States, both domestically and 

worldwide: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate congratulates the National 

2 Association of State Departments of Agriculture on the 

3 celebration of the 100th anniversary of its founding. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
osha.gov/workers

OSHA 4351-08 2023 | Western Punjabi
D ENIED and Opinion Filed May 27, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00368 - CV No. 05 - 22 - 00369 - CV No. 05 - 22 - 00378 - CV IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND , Relator Original Proceeding s from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 31608 - 422, 31609 - 422 & 31610 - 422

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Nowell Howard Holland has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on two motion s he represents he filed on January 7, 2022. We deny the petition. Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in tha t it is not properly certified and is not supported by a record of certified or sworn documents. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7 (a)(1); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758

– 59 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 132.001 (describing how inmate may authenticate documents as sworn copies).– 2

–

Furthermore, even if relator had filed a complying petition, he has not shown the trial court has had a reasonable time to rule upon the motion s . See In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661

– 62 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (no mandamus relief absent proof motion was filed, presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling, and trial court given reasonable time to issue ruling); In re M olina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mandamus relief not available until trial court has had reasonable opportunity to rule on motion). In this case, relator asserts he filed his motions on January 7, 2022, reminded the trial court that they were pending by letter dated March 7, 2022, and filed his petition seeking mandamus relief on April 20, 2022. Even assuming the truth of relator’s assertions, we cannot conclude relator has shown he is entitled to mandam us relief after such a short period of time. We deny relator’s petition. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

220 368 f.p05 220369f.p0 5 220378f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/ / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
September 25, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

I

- 10 COLONY, INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 01051

- CV V.
CHAO KUAN LEE, LI YA NG LEE, LI HSIANG CH ANG , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an ap peal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Chao Kuan Lee, Li Yang Lee, Li Hsiang Chang, signed September 22, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find that the trial court erred in determining the beginning da te for the calculation of prejudgment interest. We therefore REFORM the judgment to change the beginning date for the calculation of prejudgment interest to March 5, 2010. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED as so modified

. We order appell ant, I

- 10 Colony, Inc., to pay all costs in this appeal. We further order the decision certified below for observance.