alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(AHCCCS LOGO)
    
    ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE
SECTION A: CONTRACT
 1 .
    
    AMENDMENT
    
    
    2.
    
    
    CONTRACT
    
    
    3.
    
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE OF
    
    
    4.
    
    
    PROGRAMNUMBER:
    
    
    
    
    
    NO.:
    
    
    
    
    
    AMENDMENT:12
    
    
    
    
    
    YH09-0001-07
    
    
    
    
    
    October 1, 2009
    
    
    
    
    
    DHCM  ACUTE
  VHS Phoenix Health Plan, LLC
7878 N. 16 th St., Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85020
    Mark Held
 Sr. Procurement Specialist  AHCCCS Contracts and Purchasing  Stewart McKenzie  Stewart.McKenzie@azahcccs.gov
 8. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
CONTRACT NOT HERETOFORE CHANGED AND/OR AMENDED REMAIN UNCHANGED AND
IN FULL EFFECT.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO SIGN THEIR NAMES IN AGREEMENT
 9. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE:
    
    10. SIGNATURE OF AHCCCSA CONTRACTING
OFFICER:/s/ Nancy Novick
    
    /s/ Michael VeitTYPED NAME: NANCY NOVICK
    
    TYPED NAME: MICHAEL VEITTITLE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    TITLE: CONTRACTS & PURCHASING ADMINISTRATORDATE: 11/5/10
    
    DATE: OCT 26 2010




---



##### 



ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
REVISED CAPITATION RATE SUMMARY  ACUTE RATES
Phoenix Health Plan
10/1/09-9/30/10
 TANF
    
    
    TANF
    
    
    TANF
    
    
    TANF
    
    
    TANF
    
    
    SSI
    
    
    SSITitle XIX and KidsCare Rates 1:
    
    <1, M/F
    
    
    1-13, M/F
    
    

14-44, F
    
    
    14-44, M
    
    
    45+, M/F
    
    
    w/ Med
    
    
    w/o Med
    
    
    Non-MED4 Apache/Coconino/Mohave/Navajo
    
    $
    461.60
    
    
    $
    111.96
    
    
    $
    267.24
    
    
    $
    150.93
    
    
    $
    395.92
    
    
    $
    153.53
    
    
    $
    717.85
    
    
    $
    482.716 Yavapai
    
    $
    509.93
    
    
    $
    118.24
    
    
    $
    282.23
    
    
    $
    184.89
    
    
    $
    442.03
    
    
    $
    145.89
    
    
    $
    786.83
    
    
    $
    602.358 Gila/Pinal
    
    $
    562.01
    
    
    $
    108.28
    
    
    $
    256.33
    
    
    $
    176.97
    
    
    $
    372.20
    
    
    $
    136.42
    
    
    $
    756.92
    
    
    $
    476.0810 Pima
    
    $
    461.72
    
    
    $
    94.10
    
    
    $
    216.44
    
    
    $
    114.09
    
    
    $
    359.91
    
    
    $
    120.13
    
    
    $
    792.17
    
    
    $
    410.6212 Maricopa
    
    $
    492.87
    
    
    $
    116.46
    
    
    $
    240.02
    
    
    $
    150.56
    
    
    $
    401.09
    
    
    $
    150.47
    
    
    $
    690.42
    
    
    $
    544.37
 1.
    
    Rates have been adjusted for $35,000 Reinsurance Deductible
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 9 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 9 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
A92A1346.

#### GREEN v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 288)

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of selling cocaine. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error relates to instances wherein the State allegedly introduced his character into issue.

The undercover officer who made the purchase of cocaine testified as to the events which culminated in that transaction. According to the officer, he was driving through an area known for drug activity when he observed appellant. The officer was then asked: “Based on what you knew about the mode of operation [in] the area and what you observed from [appellant], was he a suspect at this time?” Clearly, there was no error in overruling appellant’s objection to this question. It did not elicit a response concerning appellant’s activities on any occasion other than that under investigation. The question merely asked the officer whether, based upon his own prior experience and personal observations, appellant had been suspected of engaging in drug activity on this occasion. Thus, the question elicited a non-hearsay response which was relevant to the res gestae of the very crime for which appellant was being tried.

In two other instances, the trial court sustained a hearsay objection before the officer could complete his answer. No objections based upon the introduction of appellant’s character were ever made. In any event, the officer never completed his answers and no character evidence was, therefore, ever introduced.

In another instance, the officer referred to the existence, in police files, of “a prior case. . . .” Before the officer could identify that “prior case” as one which involved appellant, the trial court sustained an objection and instructed the jury to disregard the reference. Moreover, the record demonstrates that appellant’s prior conviction for selling cocaine was admitted as substantive similar crimes evidence. *413The admission of that prior conviction is not enumerated as error. Accordingly, the officer’s reference to an otherwise unidentified “prior case” could scarcely have harmed appellant.

Decided September 8, 1992.

*Edwards & McLeod, Jennifer McLeod,*for appellant.

*Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Thomas E. Cauthorn III, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                                    Percent of
                                                                      Voting
                                                                    Securities
                                         Jurisdiction of             Owned by
Subsidiary                               Incorporation              the Company
----------                               -------------              -----------
Fulton Funding Corporation               Delaware                      100%

Fulton Industries, Inc.                  Pennsylvania                  100%

Fulton International Foreign
Sales Corporation                        Barbados                      100%

Fulton International, Inc.               Delaware                      100%

Fulton Maquinaria S.L.                   Spain                         100%

Gradall Industries, Inc.                 Delaware                      100%

JLG Industries (Propriety) Limited       South Africa                  100%

JLG Deutschland GmbH                     Germany                       100%

JLG Equipment Services, Inc.             Pennsylvania                  100%

JLG Europe BV                            Netherlands                   100%

JLG Industries, GmbH                     Germany                       100%

JLG Industries (Italia) S.r.L.           Italy                         100%

JLG Manufacturing, LLC                   Pennsylvania                  100%

JLG Industries (Norge) AS                Norway                        100%

JLG Industries (United Kingdom) Ltd.     United Kingdom                100%

JLG Polaska                              Poland                        100%

JLG Properties Australia Pty Limited     Australia                     100%

JLG Sverige AB                           Sweden                        100%

The Gradall Company                      Ohio                          100%

The Gradall Orrville Company             Ohio                          100%

Skandivaniska Industrimaskiner AB        Sweden                        100%

Svensk Bygglift AB                       Sweden                        100%

The financial statements of the above listed subsidiaries are included in the
Company's Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated herein by reference.



                                       1
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.1.2


                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                        SUMMIT BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.

                            (A FLORIDA CORPORATION)

         Pursuant to the provisions of Section 607.1006, Florida Statutes, this
Corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its Amended and
Restated Articles of Incorporation:

         1.       The name of the Corporation is SUMMIT BROKERAGE SERVICES,
INC.

         2        The introductory paragraph of Section D of Article V of the
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

                  "...Of the 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock authorized for
                  issuance, 150,000 shares are hereby designated as Series A
                  Convertible Preferred Stock (the "Series A Preferred Stock").
                  The powers, designations, preferences and relative,
                  participating, optional or other special rights of the Series
                  A Preferred Stock authorized hereunder, and the
                  qualifications, limitations and restrictions of such
                  preferences and rights, are as follows:..."

         3.       The foregoing amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of
the Corporation was adopted and approved by written action in lieu of a meeting
of the Corporation's Board of Directors, effective as of March 22, 2002.
Shareholder approval was not required pursuant to Section 607.0631 of the
Florida Business Corporation Act.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these Articles of Amendment have been executed
this 22nd day of March, 2002.


                                    SUMMIT BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Richard Parker
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Richard Parker, Chairman and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
# CE2012099EN.01014802.xml

| 3.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 99/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/148

---

Tuesday 23 November 2010EC-Ukraine agreement for scientific and technological cooperation ***

P7_TA(2010)0412

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 November 2010 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine (11364/2010 – C7-0187/2010 – 2009/0062(NLE))

2012/C 99 E/35

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11364/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11364/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0187/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0187/2010),

| — | having regard to its position of 26 November 2009 (1) on the Commission proposal (COM(2009)0182), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position of 26 November 2009 (1) on the Commission proposal (COM(2009)0182),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0306/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0306/2010),

| 1. | Consents to the renewal of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the renewal of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Ukraine.

---

(1)  OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 170.

1

---
Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### James A. Herley, Appellant, v Kim Herley, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and plaintiffs motion granted. Memorandum: After extensive negotiation during which each party was represented by his own attorney, the parties entered into a separation agreement dated May 28, 1987, which was filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s office on July 1, 1987. Defendant never moved to have the agreement set aside. Over a year later, plaintiff commenced an action for a conversion divorce, alleging that the parties had lived separate and apart for one year pursuant to the separation agreement, and that he had substantially complied with its terms. Only in response to plaintiffs action for divorce did defendant, for the first time, seek rescission of the agreement on the ground of fraud.

The court denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his cause of action for a conversion divorce, as well as his motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim seeking rescission of the agreement. This was error.

On this record, we conclude that full disclosure of his assets was made by plaintiff and the agreement when entered into was fair. Defendant has offered no proof to the contrary, other than insufficient conclusory allegations *(see, Juliani v Juliani,*143 AD2d 72; *Stoerchle v Stoerchle,*101 AD2d 831).

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his claim for a conversion divorce and defendant’s counterclaim for rescission of the separation agreement should be dismissed.

We do conclude, however, that defendant’s affidavit in response to the motion for summary judgment raises issues with regard to custody and child support, and that these issues require a plenary trial for resolution. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — dismiss counterclaim.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31CERTIFICATIONSI, Ron E. Hooper, certify that1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Tidelands Royalty Trust “B” for which Bankof America, N.A. acts as Trustee; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing suchcontrols and procedures to be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  March 30, 2007 /s/ RON E. HOOPER   Ron E. Hooper   Senior Vice President Royalty Management on behalf of Bank of America Private Bank, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of Tidelands Royalty Trust “B”  
26
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009246EN.01000501.xml

| 14.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 246/03

| Date of adoption of the decision | 27.5.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 471/05 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Abruzzo |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Risarcimento dei danni subiti dagli acquacoltori |
| Legal basis | Legge finanziaria regionale n. 6/2005 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Compensation for damage |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | EUR 9 600 |
| Intensity | 40 % |
| Duration (period) | One financial year |
| Economic sectors | Aquaculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Giunta Regionale |
| Via Catullo n. 17 |
| 65127 Pescara PE |
| ITALIA |

Date of adoption of the decision

27.5.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 471/05

Member State

Italy

Region

Abruzzo

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Risarcimento dei danni subiti dagli acquacoltori

Legal basis

Legge finanziaria regionale n. 6/2005

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Compensation for damage

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

EUR 9 600

Intensity

40 %

Duration (period)

One financial year

Economic sectors

Aquaculture

Name and address of the granting authority

Giunta Regionale

Via Catullo n. 17

65127 Pescara PE

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 12 of 12