alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
attestationh0117.htm


Back to Form 8-K




 


Medicare Advantage Attestation of Benefit Plan


 


WELLCARE OF OHIO, INC.


 


H0117







 







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 2012. 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 2011 and 2012, including but not limited to, the 2012 Call Letter, the 2012 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


	
005

	
0

	
7

	
WellCare


Value 


(HMO)

	
HMO 

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/06/2011

	
01/01/2012


	
007

	
0

	
8

	
 WellCare 


Access 


(HMO 


SNP)

	HMO	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
28.80

	
09/06/2011

	
01/01/2012







 


 


 


 


 


 



	 	 	 	 H0117





 


 






  





  











  






 


 



	
THOMAS TRAN


 

	 	 9/1/2011 10:26:11 AM	 
	
 


Contracting Official Name 

	 	 Date	 





 


 


 


 




	
WELLCARE OF OHIO, INC.


 

	 	
8735 Henderson Rd


Ren 1 


Tampa, FL 33634


 

	 
	
 


Organization 

	 	
 


Address

	 





                    


 


 


 


 


                                                         


	 	 	 	 H0117
# Official Journal L 286I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 286I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 658 November 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 286I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 658 November 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2177 of 8 November 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2178 of 8 November 2022 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma | 12 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2177 of 8 November 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2178 of 8 November 2022 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma

12

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 07-14-00279-CR

Teddie Davenport

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 77th District Court

of Limestone County

April 27, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 27, 2015

, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
John MELLQUIST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3630

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN RE: APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 17-PDB-077

NO. 2018-OB-0040

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

Leave to appeal denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Wayne CHAPMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50276.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Robert Edward Dugdale, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wayne R. Young, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Wayne Chapman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We dismiss the appeal because Chapman waived his right to appeal the sentence in the plea agreement. The *171district court, as required by Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(6), informed Chapman during the plea colloquy of, and determined that Chapman understood, the terms of the waiver, and there is no indication that the waiver was made other than knowingly and voluntarily. *United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The sole test of a waiver’s validity is whether it was made knowingly and voluntarily.”).

Chapman’s contention that the condition that the district court not “depart upward in offense level” renders the waiver unenforceable lacks merit. The district court did not depart from the Sentencing Guidelines offense level; the district court increased Chapman’s offense level based on the specific offense characteristic of firearm possession described in Chapter Two of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 (stating that determinations made under Chapter Two of the Guidelines relate to a defendant’s base offense level and any appropriate specific offense level characteristics, and that Part K of Guidelines Chapter Five relates to departures).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Filed 7/11/16 P. v. Silver CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GILBERT SILV ER

Defendant and Appellant. B265417

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA406335)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County

, Willia m

N. Sterling, Judge. Affirmed.

Russell S. Babcock

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________2

On December 31, 2012, Gilbert Silver was hosting a New Year’s Eve party at his

home in Los Angeles when officers of the Los Angele s Police Department arrived,

having heard gunshots in the area and determining they came from Silver’s location. One

of the officers then witnessed Silver fire a black assault

- type rifle in to the air.

A jury convicted Silver of gross ly negligent dischar ge of a firearm (Pen. Code

, §

246

. 3)

, and he was sentenced to three years probation conditioned on his serving 180

days in jail, less custody credit of 44 days, and performin g 30 days of service work with

Caltrans.

We appointed counsel to represent Silve r on appeal and

, after examination of the

record

, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to

review the record independently

. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441

- 442.) On

March 22, 2016, we sent letters to Silver and appointed counsel, directing counsel to

immediately forward the appellate record to Silver and advising Silver that within 30

days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider.

Silver did not respond.

We ha ve examined the entire record and find no arguable issue exists. We are

therefore satisfied that Silver’s attorney complied with his responsibilities

, and affirm the

judgment. ( People v. Wende

, supra

, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

We concur:

JOHNSON, J. L UI, J.
Murphy SINCLAIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2438

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# CE2004065EN.01020801.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/208

---

(2004/C 65 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Forwarding of information about passengers flying between the EU and the USA

Subject:

The EU has decided to provide such detailed information about passengers flying from the EU to the USA that it even includes credit card numbers.

Does the EU apply reciprocal requirements to those travelling from the United States to the European Union? If not, why does the EU not require the same information from the USA as the USA does from the EU? Will the EU introduce a requirement for information about passengers to be provided in the same detail as the USA requires?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

(18 November 2003)

The Commission has not decided that information about passengers should flow to the United States. In fact, the US authorities have unilaterally imposed on airlines flying to, from and through the United States the obligation to provide access to Passenger Name Record (PNR) information, which is likely to contain personal details regarding the passengers, as well as information about the reservation and the flight.

The Commission considers that this requirement may conflict with EC data protection rules and is holding discussions with the relevant US authorities to find a solution that fully respects both US and EC law and makes the US authorities' legitimate objective of fighting terrorism — which the Union fully shares — compatible with the need to protect citizens' fundamental rights, including the protection of their personal data.

In the discussions with the US authorities the Commission has made clear that it considers certain aspects of the US request for access to passenger data in its current terms as disproportionate. This has also been highlighted by the Parliament and by some national data protection authorities in Member States.

Discussions are currently being held between the Commission and the Member States to determine what the appropriate and most extensive permissible use of PNR data in the fight against terrorism might be. The Commission has always insisted on respect for the principle of reciprocity in its discussions with the US authorities.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 12, 2012

t0112

Order 

January 12, 2012

144124

BEVERLY TEEGARDIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144124

COA: 302406

Kalamazoo CC: 2010-000167-NH

JAMES HUNT, M.D., JACK HUNT, D.O., and

GULL ROAD MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied the defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Elliot David Felman, M.D. In 

particular, we direct the Court of Appeals to consider whether Dr. Felman’s proposed 

testimony meets the criteria of MCL 600.2955 and MRE 702. See Craig v Oakwood 

Hospital, 471 Mich 67 (2004), and Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 

(2004). We further ORDER that trial court proceedings are stayed pending the 

completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, the Court of 

Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears that the 

appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

MARILYN KELLY and HATHAWAY, JJ., would remand this case to the trial court 

for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert 

witness meets the criteria of MCL 600.2955 and MRE 702.
Oliver THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1142

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Andrew JOSEPH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Exhibit 4.2

 

October 13, 2011

 

Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited
 British Columbia Securities Commission
 Alberta Securities Commission
 Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission
 Manitoba Securities Commission
 Ontario Securities Commission
 Autorité des marchés financiers
 New Brunswick Securities Commission
 Nova Scotia Securities Commission
 Prince Edward Island Securities Office, Consumer, Corporate and
                 Insurance Services Division
 Newfoundland & Labrador Department of Government Services, Consumer &
                 Commercial Affairs Branch
 Toronto Stock Exchange
 United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited (the “Company”)

 

I have been named as a “qualified person” in the take-over bid circular dated October 13, 2011 forming part of the offer made by the Company to purchase all of the outstanding common shares of Grayd Resource Corporation (“Grayd”), including common shares issuable under options and warrants of Grayd (as may be amended or supplemented from time to time in the future, the “Circular”), which Circular is incorporated by reference into and is deemed to be included in the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-80 (as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and as may be further amended from time to time in the future, including by way of post-effective amendment, the “Registration Statement”).

 

I hereby consent to the use of my name in the Circular and in the Registration Statement and the use, inclusion or incorporation by reference of, and reference(s) to, the information that I have prepared or supervised the preparation of as a “qualified person” under National Instrument 43-101 (the “QP Information”) in the Circular and in the Registration Statement.  I confirm that I have read the Circular and the Registration Statement and have no reason to believe that (i) there is any misrepresentation in the information contained in the Circular or the Registration Statement that is derived from the QP Information, and (ii) the Circular or the Registration Statement contains any misrepresentation of the information

 











 

contained in the QP Information or within my knowledge, as a result of the investigations and enquiries made by me in connection with the preparation of the QP Information.

 

This letter is solely for your information in connection with the offering of the securities covered by the Circular under the Registration Statement, and is not to be referred to in whole or in part for any other purpose.

 

 

	
Yours very truly,
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Marc Legault
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Marc Legault, P.Eng.
    	
 
    


 

2
1

 
CONTENTS     Article 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS  4  Article 2. CORPORATE NAME AND LOCATION OF THE COMPANY  4  Article 3. LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMPANY  4  Article 4. AIMS, SUBJECT MATTER AND TYPES OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY  5  Article 5. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY AND SHAREHOLDERS  7  Article 6. FOUNDATION DOCUMENTS OF THE COMPANY  7  Article 7. CHARTER CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY  7  Article 8. INCREASE OF THE CHARTER CAPITAL  8  Article 9. REDUCTION OF THE CHARTER CAPITAL  9  Article 10. SHARES OF THE COMPANY  10  Article 11. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY  11  Article 12. BONDS AND OTHER SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY  12  Article 13. FUNDS, NET ASSETS, PROFIT AND DIVIDENDS  13  Article 14. PLACEMENT OF SHARES AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY  15  Article 15. REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY  16  Article 16. MANAGEMENT BODIES OF THE COMPANY  16  Article 17. GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS  16  Article 18. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY  22  Article 19. EXECUTIVE BODY OF THE COMPANY  28  Article 20. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY  29  Article 21. ACQUISITION AND REACQUISITION OF PLACED SHARES BY THE COMPANY  30  Article 22. MAJOR TRANSACTIONS  31  Article 23. INTERESTED PARTY TRANSACTIONS  32  Article 24. CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY  33 
2

 
     Article 25. ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING, DOCUMENTS OF THE COMPANY. INFORMATION ABOUT THECOMPANY  34  Article 26. REORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY  36  Article 27. LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY  37 
3

 
Article 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS1.1 Mechel Open Joint Stock Company, hereinafter referred to as the “Company” (the formerfull corporate name of the Company was registered as Mechel Steel Group Open Joint Stock Company byInspectorate No. 3 in and for the Central Administrative Okrug of the City of Moscow of the RussianFederation Ministry for Taxes and Collections on March 19, 2003), has been founded and operates inaccordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law on Joint Stock Companies(No 208-FZ of December 26, 1995; hereinafter called “the Federal Law on Joint Stock Companies), theFederal Law on Foreign Investments (No 160-FZ of July 9, 1999), applicable rules, regulations, andlegislation of all exchanges on which the Company’s securities are traded, other Russian Federationlegislation, and this Charter.1.2 The type of the Company shall be open joint stock company.1.3. The Company shall be established for an indefinite period of time.1.4. This Charter is a new version of the Charter first registered on March 19, 2003, theCharter registered on February 26, 2004, with Amendments and Additions registered on November 03,2004, and the Charter registered on July 19, 2005.Article 2. CORPORATE NAME AND LOCATION OF THE COMPANY2.1. Thefull corporate name of the Company in the Russian language shall be—
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DAVID KARL GRAHAM,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 150 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of October, 2015, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
IN the INTEREST OF P.A.D., JR., a child.

P.A.D., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3837

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2469 

To prohibit an agency or department of the United States from establishing 

or implementing an internal policy that discourages or prohibits the 

selection of a resort or vacation destination as the location for a conference or event, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit an agency or department of the United States 

from establishing or implementing an internal policy that 

discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation destination as the location for a conference or event, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect America’s Cit5 ies from Government Blacklist Act of 2012’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2469 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN TRAVEL AND CON2 FERENCES POLICIES OF AGENCIES OF THE 

3 UNITED STATES. 

4 No agency or department of the United States may 

5 establish or implement an internal policy regarding travel, 

6 event, meeting, or conference locations that discourages 

7 or prohibits the selection of such a location because the 

8 location is perceived to be a resort or vacation destination. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS