alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AFMC to eliminate flu shots for some civilians due to budgetPublished Sept. 11, 2013
                        
                        By Michelle Martz
                        
                        
                        Air Force Materiel Command Public Affairs
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                As command officials make tough budget decisions with fewer dollars to spend, Air Force Materiel Command civilian employees who are not beneficiaries of the TRICARE health program will no longer receive AFMC-provided flu shots in advance of the upcoming flu season. 
Civilian health is a top priority in AFMC. However, vaccine purchases had to be made early in 2013, when this year's budget numbers were less certain. Analysis determined that less than 20 percent of the civilian population used the AFMC-provided flu vaccine program and officials elected to instead fund AFMC's more comprehensive civilian programs, the Employee Assistance Program and Civilian Health Promotion Services. CHPS is designed to provide wellness educators and screening programs that improve the overall health of the civilian workforce. CHPS offers health education classes, cardiac risk profile screenings and an online employee health management tool at afmcwellness.com. 
"In the past, AFMC has offered both the flu vaccine and wellness programs because civilian health and wellness is an important factor that supports our command mission," said Col. James King, the AFMC command surgeon. "Unfortunately, limited resources required us to prioritize and ultimately fund broader health programs that provide more resources for the total health of our civilian workforce." 
Two years ago, AFMC was able to expand its civilian wellness program to include offering free flu shots to the entire civilian workforce. In 2012, approximately 12,000 civilians participated in the program. 
Today, civilians not covered by TRICARE are urged to contact their private health care providers and get a flu shot. 
"Getting a flu shot is the best way to help prevent influenza," King said. "Early immunization is key to protecting yourself and your family members, so we encourage everyone to get vaccinated." 
While many civilian employees are no longer eligible for the free on-base flu vaccine, TRICARE continues to provide shots for all active-duty members, military retirees and military family members.TRICARE 



Air Force Materiel Command 



AFMC 



sequestration 



budget 



flu shot
#### Prestage & Walters v. James C. Loving.

(No. 486, Tex. L. J., vol. 2, p. 436.)

Error from Hood County.

January 11, 1879.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 707. *Judgment by default; objection on appeal to evidence.*An objection that the note sued on was not produced in evidence at the time judgment by default was rendered in the lower court, comes too late when made for the first time in this court on appeal.

§ 708. *Where defendant fails to bring his answer to attention of the lower*court, *he cannot correct the error on appeal.*Where a defendant suffered judgment by default to be rendered against him without bringing his answer to the attention of the court, and suffered the term to elapse without moving the court to correct the mistake, he cannot complain on appeal. Everything is presumed in favor of the judgment which is not precluded by the record. [Hopkins v. Donaho, 4 Tex. 336.]

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2980 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2980

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify payment under 
the Medicare program for outpatient department procedures that utilize 
               drugs as supplies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2014

   Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Burr) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify payment under 
the Medicare program for outpatient department procedures that utilize 
               drugs as supplies, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Equal Access to Treatments 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM FOR OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT 
              PROCEDURES THAT UTILIZE DRUGS AS SUPPLIES.

    Section 1833(t)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395l(t)(2)(G)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and all that follows 
and inserting the following: ``shall--
                            ``(i) create additional groups of covered 
                        OPD services that classify separately those 
                        procedures that utilize contrast agents from 
                        those that do not;
                            ``(ii) create and implement, for services 
                        furnished after the date of the enactment of 
                        this clause and in a budget neutral manner, 
                        additional groups of covered OPD services that 
                        classify separately those procedures that 
                        utilize a drug (other than contrast agents and 
                        diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals) that both--
                                    ``(I) has a cost above the drug 
                                packaging threshold; and
                                    ``(II) functions as a supply when 
                                used in a diagnostic test or procedure;
                        from those that do not; and''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly Report of Legacy Holdings, Inc. FKA CST
        Entertainment, Inc. (the ”Company”) on Form 10QSB for the period ending December
        31, 1996, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Matthews, Chief
        Executive Officer and Principle Accounting Officer of the
        Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
        15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
        of the
        Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (i)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 (ii)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
 
  Dated: August
        21, 2008
 
 
 /S/ Robert
        Matthews
 Name:
        Robert Matthews
 Title: Chief
        Executive Officer and Principle Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 of
Cardium Therapeutics, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc.



|                   |  |                                                 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2010 |  | /s/ Christopher J. Reinhard                     
|                   |  | Christopher J. Reinhard, Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Date: May 10, 2010 |  | /s/ Dennis M. Mulroy                            
|                   |  | Dennis M. Mulroy, Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or
as a separate disclosure document
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD T. CASSIDY, JR.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 548 CITY OF KALISPELL,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATHAN RAY WARNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 21 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 11 2023

01/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0548
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electronic
Tele-Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey M. Nigl, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Jeffrey M. Nigl
-------------------
Jeffrey M. Nigl
Chief Financial Officer
November 3, 2003


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### MAURY *v.*HITCHCOCK

Corporations ; Stock and Stockholders.

3. This case is governed by the decision of the court in the case of *Degge*v. *Hitchcock, ante,*218.

2. *Quaere,*whether the stockholders of a corporation can have any recognition, in a court of law, of the right to complain of an injury to the corporation.

No. 2116.

Submitted April 6, 1910.

Decided May 10, 1910.

*229Hearing on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia discharging a rule tO' show cause why the writ of certiorari should not issue to review an order of the Postmaster General and dismissing a petition therefor.

*Affirmed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Walter B. Gu,y*and *Mr. O. A. Erdman*for the appellant.

*Mr. Daniel W. Baker,*United States District Attorney, and *Mr. F. Sprigg Perry*and *Mr. B. 8. Iluidekoper,*Assistants, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The petition for certiorari in this case was filed for the purpose of bringing up for review the same proceedings and decision of the Postmaster General as in the preceding case of *Degge*v. Hitchcock, No. 2115 [ante, 218]. The petitioners allege themselves to be stockholders and directors in the several corporations that are petitioners in No. 2115.

It is unnecessary, in view of the disposition made of the appeal in No. 2115, to consider whether the stockholders of a corporation can have any recognition in a court of law of the right to complain of injury to the corporation. The same matters having been presented in the petition of the several corporations and their president and manager, Degge, and having been determined adversely to them, nothing remains but to affirm the judgment appealed from in this case, with costs. It is so ordered. *Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ritu Chandy, certify that:




1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2011-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2.              Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.              Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5.              All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.




Dated:  March 20, 2015




By:  /s/ Ritu Chandy


Name:  Ritu Chandy


Title:  Vice President – Finance & CFO


BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW149955]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Chesapeake Exploration LLC and Khody Land & Minerals Company for competitive oil and gas lease WYW149955 for land in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessees have agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW149955 effective April 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the lands.                

Julie L. Weaver,

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 2010-22961 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### Mann. Mauck & Stephens v. Clapp & Brown.

(No. 211, Op. Book No. 1, p. 190.)

Appeal from Cherokee County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 503. *Venue; contract to perform obligation in a particular county.*One of the exceptions to the general statutory rule that every inhabitant of the state must be sued in the county of his domicile is: “In cases where a person has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, in which case suit may be instituted in that county.” [Pas. Dig. 1423, note.] As the statute now is, this contract must be in writing. [R. S. 1198, sub. 5; 1556, sub. 4.] The fact that defendants were running and operating a mill in a county through their agent, while they had their domicile in another county, and that the agent contracted the debt in the county where the mill was situated for the use and benefit of the defendants, would not make them liable to be sued in the last named county, unless, as part of the contract, the parties, through their agent, had further obligated themselves to perform the contract by paying the debt in that particular county. The exception is not that the *250party must have contracted a debt or obligation, but that he has contracted to *perform it*in a particular county.

October 8, 1877.

§ 504. *Partnership; dissolution and notice of; rules relating to. “*It is a well settled rule of law, that a partnership, or other similar relation, once proved to exist, is presumed to exist until it is proved to have been dissolved.” [1 G-reenl. Ev. § 42; 2 Stark. Ev. 590, 688.] The fact of dissolution of a partnership, where the parties occupy the relation of dealers and customers, may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, sufficient to establish that the party seeking to hold the retired partner liable did know of the dissolution. This proposition involves two facts, viz.: the relation of the parties as dealers and customers, and notice, in fact, express or implied, to be submitted to the jury under the instruction of the court. [Collyer on Part. § 534.] As to persons who have been in the habit of dealing with the firm, it is requisite that actual notice be brought home to them; such notice may, however, be implied from circumstances. It is not material in what manner it is given. [Collyer on Part. § 533; 3 Kent Com. 66, 61; Laird v. Ivens, 45 Tex. 621.]

§ 505. *Partners all liable though unknown as such.*Partners are all liable for articles furnished for the benefit of the firm, though the vendor does not know of the existence of the firm, and though he supposes himself dealing with and giving credit to an individual partner, by charging him alone on his books. [Ford v. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498; Devine v. Martin, 15 Tex. 25; 4 Cowen, 282.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Ben Austin v. E. M. Kahn & Co.

(No. 1905, Op. Book No. *2,*p. 285.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

May 18, 1881.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1049. *infancy; necessaries, liability for.*An infant living separate and apart from his parents is liable for necessaries furnished to him, but his living separate and apart from his parents does not enlarge his liability so as-to extend to contracts for the purchase of articles which clo not fall within the classification o£ necessaries. This was a suit by appellee against the appellant upon account for clothing sold and delivered by appellee to appellant. Appellant pleaded that he was a minor when he purchased the clothing. The trial court charged the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant was not twenty-one years of age at the time the credit was given, then he would not be liable, unless the goods sold and delivered to him were necessary for him, and suitable and proper for one of his age and station in life, *or unless the defendant teas living separate and apart from Ms parents.*The italicised portion of this charge was held to be erroneous.

Eeversed and remanded.