alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 73021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Population Health and 
Clinical Care Connections Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 22nd meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections 
Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee act (Pub. 
L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.)

DATES: January 3, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern Time].

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion 
on how to facilitate the flow of reliable health information among 
population health and clinical care systems necessary to protect and 
improve the public's health.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/pop_instruct.html.

Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-6157 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-45-M
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apextalk Holdings, Inc. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 24, 2010                             |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |
| /s/ Shan Liu                                   |
| Shan LiuChief Financial and Accounting Officer |
Order issued November 24, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________
No. 05-13-00306-CR

________________________________________ KAREN PATRICIA BOWIE, Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we GRANT the April 9, 2014 motion of Jessie

R. Allen for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the

Court to remove Jessie R. Allen as c ounsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Karen Patricia Bowie,

TDCJ No. 1839441, Crain Unit, 1401 State Sc hool Road, Gatesville, Texas, 76599-2999.

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Miller, Diane M.

From: James Thomas [jthomas@scblaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:42 PM

To: "NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV'

Subject: Comments on Proposed Rules, 42 CFR Part 82

a |

356043v1.DOC
NIOSH Docket Officer,

Attached are my comments on the Proposed EEIOCPA Rules that were published
in the Federal Register on October 5, 2001, p. 50978ff.

James P. Thomas

Paralegal

Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104-4088

Direct: (206) 223-2004

Tel: (206) 682-3333

Fax: (206) 340-8856

E-mail: jthomas@scblaw.com

<<356043v1.D0C>>


Comments on
Proposed Rules — 42 CFR Part 82
“Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Interim Final Rule With
Request for Comments”

Submitted by James P. Thomas, Paralegal
Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
999 Third Avenue — Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104-4088
(206) 223-2004

October 18, 2001

1. Sec. 82.10(e) -- The condition that information by the claimant can be used if
"not refuted by other evidence" is unfair and will serve to protect those DOE
contractors that modified worker exposure records to diminish the levels received.
Thave been told by several workers that either their exposure records did not
reflect their total dose or they were asked to approve modifying other worker
records to reflect levels substantially lower than the measured dose. There needs to
be some process included in these rules to justly consider adjusting the dose
estimate when workers report that their exposure records have been
inappropriately modified. The current language addressing "incomplete or missing
exposure records" is insufficient to encompass known instances of exposure
records being inappropriately redacted.

2. Sec. 82.10(1) -- The proposed rules should be changed to allow for subsequent
rounds of the "closing" interview if the worker provided additional dose-related
information during previous interviews. The claimant must be given another
interview, including the opportunity to provide additional information, after each
time the individual dose estimate is calculated. This will allow an opportunity for
explanations of how the additional information was considered in recalculating a
dose estimate.

3. Sec. 82.12(c) -- This provision for refusing any compensation if the dose
reconstruction cannot be completed is also unfair. It will penalize workers when
DOE or its contractors lost or destroyed records necessary for dose reconstruction.
The rules should be modified to create some process to fairly resolve situations
that involve missing or destroyed records. The injured worker should not be
denied compensation due to the actions of others.

Thank you for considering these comments as you prepare the final rules.

356043.1/016058.00001
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Timothy J. Neher, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS II, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY
      CERTIFY that:





1.
      The
      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
      (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
      this **** 13th
      day
      of August, 2008.


*/s/
              Timothy J. Neher*Timothy
              J. NeherChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
              Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS II, INC. and will be retained by ACCELERATED
      ACQUISITIONS II, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2247

_____________________________

BRITTNEY CUNNINGHAM, L.P.N.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Department of Health, Board of 

Nursing.

Maggie Hansen, MHSc, RN, Chair.

January 3, 2024

RAY, J.

Brittney Cunningham challenges a final order of the Florida

Board of Nursing revoking her nursing license for engaging in 

unprofessional conduct in violation of section 464.018(1)(h), 

Florida Statutes (2021) (authorizing disciplinary action for 

unprofessional conduct), and rule 64B9-8.005(14), Florida 

Administrative Code (defining that conduct to include using 

abusive, threatening or foul language in front of a patient or 

directing such language toward a patient). We affirm, without 

further discussion, that part of the order finding that she failed to 

timely submit an Election of Rights form and thus waived her right 

to a formal hearing.
2

But as the Department correctly concedes, the Board 

erroneously believed that revocation of Cunningham’s license was 

the minimum penalty that could be imposed and mitigating factors 

would be needed to deviate below that penalty. Instead, license 

revocation was outside the guidelines and required a specific 

showing of aggravating circumstances. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 

64B9-8.006(3)(f) (setting the minimum penalty for a first offense of

unprofessional conduct at a reprimand, $250 fine, and continuing 

education; setting the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and 

probation); id. at (5)(a)–(b) (allowing the Board to deviate from 

those guideline penalties upon a showing of aggravating or 

mitigating circumstances, and enumerating a non-exhaustive list 

of circumstances the Board may consider). In imposing a penalty 

outside the guidelines, the Board must make “[a] specific finding 

in the final order of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” 

§ 456.079(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). The Board failed to do so here.

We thus set aside the final order as to the penalty imposed 

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

See § 120.68(7)(e)2., 4., Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring an appellate

court to remand a case to the agency for further proceedings or set 

aside agency action when the agency has exercised its discretion 

inconsistent with an agency rule or in violation of a statutory 

provision).

AFFIRMED in part, SET ASIDE in part, and REMANDED.

ROWE and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Lance O. Leider of The Health Law Firm, P.A., Altamonte Springs,

for Appellant.
3

Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate Counsel, Florida 

Department of Health, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-4246EM

_____________

Tommie Powell; Dorothy Powell, *

*

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, *

*

Appellant. *

_____________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Eastern

No. 97-4247EM District of Missouri.

_____________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

Tommie Powell; Dorothy Powell, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 22, 1998

Filed: September 30, 1998 

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
-2-

_____________

PER CURIAM.

After a fire destroyed the home of Tommie and Dorothy Powell, the Powells

brought this diversity action in Missouri to recover under their homeowner’s insurance

policy issued by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. During the trial, State Farm

asserted the policy did not cover the loss because the Powells intentionally caused the

fire. Although State Farm did not stipulate to the amount of the Powells’ damages,

State Farm never contested the Powells’ evidence that their damages recoverable under

the policy equaled $124,364.91. The undisputed testimony showed the Powells’

property loss far exceeded the policy limits of $121,364.91, and the Powells also had

to pay $3000 for temporary housing expenses. Instead of questioning the Powells’

damages, State Farm sought a set-off of $40,615.38, the amount State Farm had paid

on the Powells’ mortgages. Rejecting State Farm’s arson defense, the jury found in

favor of the Powells’ claim for policy coverage and awarded damages in the amount

of $83,614. Although the jury denied State Farm’s separate counterclaim for

reimbursement of the mortgage payments, the amount awarded was almost the precise

damages sustained by the Powells less the amount State Farm paid on the Powells’

mortgages. Unsatisfied with the result, State Farm filed a motion to amend the

judgment asking the district court to subtract the amount of the mortgage payments

from the verdict. In response, the Powells filed a motion to amend the judgment asking

for an increase in the verdict to the amount of the uncontested damages. The district

court denied both motions to amend. State Farm appeals, and the Powells cross appeal.

We conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions.

Once the jury found State Farm liable for payment under the policy, the policy required

State Farm to pay $124,364.91, the full amount of the Powells’ uncontested damages

up to policy limits, less $40,615.38, the amount of State Farm’s mortgage payments.

Thus, the policy requires State Farm to pay the Powells $83,749.53. Missouri law
-3-

permits correction of the verdict in the circumstances of this case. See Bishop v.

Cummines, 870 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994); Campbell v. Kelley, 719

S.W.2d 769, 771-72 (Mo. 1986). We thus reverse and remand for entry of a judgment

for the Powells in the amount of $83,749.53.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ABRWH

Agenda

Subcommittee on Procedures Review

February 18, 2015

Conference Call Number 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code 9933701

11:00 a.m. EDT Welcome and Roll Call

11:10 Review BRS status All

11:20 White paper paragraph clarifying wording for

Overarching Issue 9, Concern 1 NIOSH*

11:30 OTIB 0054 – Findings:

1-4 – Rpt 67, reactor modeling review SC&A

5 – White paper NIOSH

12:00 OTIB 0082 review SC&A

12:30 PER 0042 response 

Finding 1 – record closure NIOSH

Finding 2 SC&A

Subtask 4 SC&A

1:00 Lunch

2:00 PER 0031- Report review - carryover NIOSH*

PER 0045 response (8 added findings) NIOSH*

PER 0043 case reviews SC&A *

PER 0018 review SC&A

PER 011, Findings 3, 5 NIOSH

PER 014 worker list comparison with PER 011 NIOSH

PER 0052 review SC&A

PER 009 case audits NIOSH

PER 047 review SC&A

3:30 Break

4:15 Administrative detail - PER status – upcoming, BRS entry SC&A

- Abeyance items ready for closing NIOSH

 - Next meeting

4:30 Adjourn

*carryover
# C_2011129EN.01000101.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6144 — Giesecke & Devrient/Wincor Nixdorf International/BEB Industrie-Elektronik)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 129/01

On 19 April 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6144. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6144. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION





of





SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK





REALBIZ MEDIA GROUP, INC.





(Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the


Delaware General Corporation Law)









RESOLVED Board of Directors Board Company DGCL




Designation and Amount Series A Convertible Preferred Stock Series A Stock provided




Ranking




Dividends




Preferred Dividends Stated Value












Market Price








Liquidation Preference




Liquidation Event Net Assets Available for Distribution Series A Liquidation Amount
















pro rata
































Voting




General




Series A Stock Protective Provisions; Waivers




provided








provided






















Conversion Conversion Price Adjustments




Adjustments




Conversion Price




Reorganization, Reclassification, Consolidation, Merger or Sale












Mechanics of Conversion




Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion




Notice Regarding Conversion Price Adjustments












Limited Anti-Dilution Protection




Next 1 provided First Issuance Date




Next 1 Change in Control




Next 1 Voting Securities provided, however




Business Combination




























Continuing Directors




Common Stock Defined Common Stock provided




Reacquired Shares
















RealBiz Media Group, Inc.By: /s/ Robert A. Buntz, Jr.Name:  Robert A. Buntz, Jr.Title:  Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5186-N-04]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and                               ( print page 4614)                            surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the  homeless.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 25, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free); or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                 

Dated: January 17, 2008. 

Mark R. Johnston, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 08-244  Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
1

ABRWH

Work Group on TBD-6000

Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

2395 Progress Dr. 

Hebron, KY 41048 

859-586-0166 

Conference Call Number: (866)-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701 

May 12, 2010

8:30 a.m. EST

Cincinnati Airport Marriott

AGENDA

Note: One hour lunch break at approximately 12:00 noon.

 Adjourn by 5:00 p.m.

1. Call to order and roll call (Paul Ziemer and Ted Katz)

2. Introductory remarks and review of the agenda (Paul Ziemer)

3. Update on TBD-6000 Findings Matrix and status of each issue.

a. Issue 1: Follow-up on items from 12/12/09 meeting

b. Any other outstanding items or questions pertaining to TBD-6000

4. Appendix BB (General Steel Industries) Issues Matrix

a. Issue 1

i. NIOSH evaluation of new documents relating to source term, 

licenses, inspections, and related matters

ii. Status of Picker X-Ray FB records.

b. Issue 2

i. Confirmation from DOL that they have received NIOSH input on 

the issue of the start date for the covered period

c. Issues 3-11

i. Impact of new Issue 1 information on these issues

d. Review of Petitioner’s April 26, 2010 document (Reasons the TBD-6000 

Work Group should recommend an SEC for GSI and that Appendix BB 

and TBD-6000 need to be revised by NIOSH) and discussion thereof.

e. Report of interview of a site expert by Paul Ziemer
2

5. GSI SEC Petition Evaluation Report and SC&A Review Matrix (Note: Refer to 

October 12, 2009 PA cleared version of Issue Resolution Matrix. All 10 Issues 

include a NIOSH response and an SC&A reply.)

a. Issues 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6: Determine impact of new source term evaluation 

by NIOSH on these issues

b. Issue 4: Review and discuss SC&A analysis of this issue

c. Issue 9: Review SC&A statement concerning withdrawal of this finding

d. Consider related petitioner issues and concerns

e. Identify path forward or action for each item

6. Review of Bliss & Laughlin Steel SEC Petition ER

a. Resolve question of petitioner’s having correct version of the ER

b. SC&A report on interviews with former B&L workers

c. Determine is formal review and findings matrix is needed for B&L

7. Adjourn