alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1004.100 Acknowledgement and review of report. ( a ) *Acknowledgement.* The OIG will inform the QIO of the date it received the QIO's report and recommendation.
( b ) *Review.* The OIG will review the QIO report and recommendation to determine whether— ( 1 ) The QIO has followed the regulatory requirements of this part; and
( 2 ) A violation has occurred.
( c ) *Rejection of the QIO recommendation.* If the OIG decides that a sanction is not warranted, it will notify the QIO that recommended the sanction, the affected practitioner or other person, and the licensing board informed by the QIO of the sanction recommendation that the recommendation is rejected.
( d ) *Decision to sanction.* If the OIG decides that a violation of obligations has occurred, it will determine the appropriate sanction by considering— ( 1 ) The recommendation of the QIO;
( 2 ) The type of offense;
( 3 ) The severity of the offense;
( 4 ) The previous sanction record of the practitioner or other person;
( 5 ) The availability of alternative sources of services in the community;
( 6 ) Any prior problems the Medicare or State health care programs have had with the practitioner or other person; and
( 7 ) Any other matters relevant to the particular case.
( e ) *Exclusion sanction.* If the QIO submits a recommendation for exclusion to the OIG, and a determination is not made by the 120th day after actual receipt by the OIG, the exclusion sanction recommended will become effective and the OIG will provide notice in accordance with § 1004.110(f).
( f ) *Monetary penalty.* If the QIO recommendation is to assess a monetary penalty, the 120-day provision does not apply and the OIG will provide notice in accordance with § 1004.110 (a)-(e).
[60 FR 63640, Dec. 12, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 23143, Apr. 29, 1997]
#### Charles R. TESSIER, Jr. v. Randall E. DAVIS et al.

No. 64153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 9, 1979.

In re Charles R. Tessier, Jr. applying for writ of certiorari, First Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
HomeSweden

# Sweden

244 items

        -    Media Note  		Senior Official for the DPRK Pak’s Travel to Romania, Poland, and Sweden	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the U.S.-Türkiye Strategic Mechanism	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Receives Sweden’s NATO Instruments of Accession Before Meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 7, 2024Thomas Jefferson RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson	  March 7, 2024 
        -    Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs  		NATO – North Atlantic Treaty – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Sweden, March 7, 2024	   
        -    Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs  		NATO – Sweden Accession Protocol – Notification of Entry Into Force, March 7, 2024	   
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 5, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 5, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement Endorsing Principles for 6G: Secure, Open, and Resilient by Design	  February 28, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 26, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 26, 2024Washington, D.C. 

123…25next page

Back to Top
#### Mariano Materno FARINAS, Jr., Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 98-70597.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 21, 2001.

*438Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Mariano Farinas, Jr., a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals. We dismiss the petition.

Because the final agency order was entered after October 30, 1996, and deportation proceedings were pending before April 1, 1997, this petition is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). Under the transitional rules, “there shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is ... deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” enumerated in sections 241 (a) (2)(a)(iii) and 241(a)(2)(B)® of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G). Farinas is an alien who faces deportation for having been convicted of cocaine possession in violation of Cal. Health *&*Safety Code § 11350, a criminal offense covered by INA section 241(a)(2)(B)®. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. *See Magcmar-Pizano v. INS,*200 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G) repealed this court’s jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses, but did not repeal 28 U.S.C. § 2241).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 136.409 What positions require a background investigation and determination of eligibility for employment or retention? ( a ) All positions that allow an individual regular contact with or control over Indian children are subject to a background investigation and determination of eligibility for employment. The IHS has compiled a list of positions within the agency in which the duties and responsibilities could involve regular contact with or control over Indian children. The list will be periodically updated and made available at all IHS Personnel Offices upon request. Positions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the individual in that position has regular contact with or control over Indian children.
( b ) Tribes and Tribal organizations may use the list compiled by the IHS or develop their own procedures to determine within their program those positions that involve regular contact with or control over Indian children.
#### Joseph Porges, Respondent, *v.*Charles Cohen, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1898.)

1. Replevin — Former adjudication.

A dismissal of an action of replevin, “ for a failure to place on calendar,” is not “ a final judgment ” within the meaning of section 1691 of the Code of Civil Procedure and does not bar a second action of replevin for the same cause of action.

52, Same — Demand, where possession is rightful.

Where possession of chattels.has been obtained rightfully, a demand, before action brought, must be alleged and proved, and a failure in . this regard justifies a reversal of the judgment.

Appeal from a judgment, rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, fifth district, in an action of replevin.

Moses Feltenstein, for appellant.

R. Nathan, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order or direction of the justice dismissing the former action instituted to recover the chattels in question ■ *“*for failure to place on calendar,” was not a final judgment in that action within the meaning of section 1691 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and did not, therefore, operate as a bar to a recovery in this action. But we think that the judgment should be reversed for the reason that no demand is shown to have been made upon the defendant before the commencement of the action. Where an action is brought, as is the case here, for the wrongful detention of the property, and it does not appear that the original possession of *704the same by the defendant was wrongful, a demand, must be alleged and proved. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the case of the value- of the property sought to be reclaimed which wiH support the finding of the justice fixing the same at the sum of $50. • For these reasons the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. |

Present: Beekmae, P. J., Gildeesleeve and Giegeeich, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with Costs to appellant to abide event. :•
# Hungary

94 items

        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Hungary	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Hungary	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 4, 2022	  Ned PriceApril 4, 2022 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): DRL Hungary Youth Engagement in the Media	  March 29, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya	  Uzra ZeyaNovember 17, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		65th Anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution	  Ned PriceOctober 23, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Hungary National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 20, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Hungary	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Hungary	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 15, 2021	  Jalina PorterJune 15, 2021 

previous page123456…10next page

Back to Top
§ 137.256 Under what circumstances may the Secretary reassume a program, service, function, or activity (or portion thereof)? ( a ) Subject to the steps in § 137.257, the Secretary may reassume a program, service, function, or activity (or portion thereof) and associated funding if the Secretary makes a specific finding relative to that PSFA of : ( 1 ) Imminent endangerment of the public health caused by an act or omission of the Self-Governance Tribe, and the imminent endangerment arises out of a failure to carry out the compact or funding agreement; or
( 2 ) Gross mismanagement with respect to funds transferred to the Self-Governance Tribe by a compact or funding agreement, as determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the Inspector General, as appropriate.
( b ) Immediate reassumption may occur under additional requirements set forth in § 137.261.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2689 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2689

  To designate the United States Courthouse located at 301 West Main 
  Street in Benton, Illinois, as the ``James L. Foreman United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 1995

 Mr. Poshard introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States Courthouse located at 301 West Main 
  Street in Benton, Illinois, as the ``James L. Foreman United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Courthouse located at 301 West Main Street in 
Benton, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ``James L. 
Foreman United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James L. Foreman United 
States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1981-2 Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
#### § 587.502 [Reserved]
Exhibit No. 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-151380) on Form S-1 and (No. 333-151379) on Form S-8 of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 26, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.

| | /s/ CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP
| | -------------------------

Toledo, Ohio
March 26, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 9, 2010 

# Order

November 9, 2010

139996(54)

139997

ERNEST HORVATH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139996-7 COA: 283931, 284842 Wayne CC: 07-713287-NI DON JOHNSON and SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, d/b/a SMART, Defendants-Appellants.

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by the Michig an Association for Justice

for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is consid ered and it is GRANTED.
#### Robert Lewis BENTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 29, 1981.

*1115Robert Lewis Benton, pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
§ 1008.59 Range of the advisory opinion. ( a ) An advisory opinion will state only the OIG's opinion regarding the subject matter of the request. If the arrangement for which an advisory opinion is requested is subject to approval or regulation by any other Federal, State or local government agency, such advisory opinion may not be taken to indicate the OIG's views on the legal or factual issues that may be raised before that agency. The OIG will not provide any legal opinion on questions or issues regarding an authority which is vested in other Federal, State or local government agencies.
( b ) An advisory opinion issued under this part will not bind or obligate any agency other than the Department. It will not affect the requestor's, or anyone else's, obligations to any other agency, or under any statutory or regulatory provision other than that which is the specific subject matter of the advisory opinion.
[62 FR 7357, Feb. 19, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 38326, July 16, 1998]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRYAN ALBRIGHT, JAMIE WEITT, DONALD BARSHINGER, MINDY BARSHINGER, BRIAN BROMMER, KELLY BROMMER, ELLIE BROMMER, CAMRYN BROMMER, MAX BROMMER, TYLER BROMMER, GENE CLARK, LINDA CLARK, WILLIAM KOPF,JR. BRIAN MESHEY, LISA MESHEY, ZACHARY MESHEY, DEYCON MESHEY, DENNIS GINGRICH, KAY GINGRICH CLAY GINGRICH, ROBERTA HILTON, DIJOHN CHRISTIAN, CANDI ISETT, KYLE ISETT, ASHLYNN ISETT DEBRA SCHEID, JAMES SCHEID, RYAN FOGLE, TABITHA ISETT DEMBROWSKI,

STEPHEN DEMBRO WSKI, TIM LANDIS ADRIENNE LANDIS, ANNA OLIVERA, JACOB GRAHAM, JAE IRIZARRY, DANIEAL IRIZARRY, EDWIN OLIVERA EDWIN OLIVERA, JR., GLORIA OLIVERA, DENISE OLIVERA, MADELINE OLIVERA, MIGUEL MARQUEZ, JR. NEVAYA MARQUEZ, LOUIS MALACHI GASTON, JEREMIAH OLIVERA, EL I OLIVERA, STEVE SELLERS, CARRIE SELLERS LORI SELLERS, SAMANTHA SELLERS, ALEXUS SELLERS, DARRION BROOKS

HESS NATHAN STORM FELTZ AND NOLA MAEVE STORM FELTZ,

Petitioners

v.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., JOYN NEID, JAMES BAKER, FRANK GOHL, PATRI CK NOLAN, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP AND BARLEY SNYDER, LLP.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 666 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[ 666 MAL 2019 ]

- 2 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2005243EN.01001101.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Il Tribunale di Bergamo by order of that court of 28 June 2005 in D.I.A Srl in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA

(Case C-309/05)

(2005/C 243/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale di Bergamo of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 2005, between D.I.A Srl in liquidation and Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA on the interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Council Directive 86/653 of 18 December 1986 for the reasons already set out by the Corte di Cassazione, Sezione Lavoro, in Order No 20410 (1) of 18 October 2004.

1

---

(1)  Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali srl v Mariella De Z|otti (Case C-465/04) OJ C 31, of 05.02.2005, page 4.

1

Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali srl

Mariella De Z|otti

---
# New Zealand

120 items

        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: New Zealand	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink’s Travel to the People’s Republic of China and New Zealand	  June 3, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Resettlement Diplomacy Network Senior Officials Meeting	  June 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Honolulu, Fiji, and New Zealand	  June 2, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister Hipkins	  May 22, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: New Zealand	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Department of State Announces 2,100 Benjamin Gilman Scholars, Expanding Access to Study Abroad for American Undergraduate Students	  May 10, 2023 
        -    		克里姆林宫的宣传面孔:玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃	  2023年4月24日 
        -    		Rostros de la propaganda del Kremlin: María Zakharova	  24  de abril de  2023 
        -    		کریملن کے پراپیگنڈے کے چہرے: ماریا زاخارووا	  24 اپریل 2023 

previous page123456…12next page

Back to Top
§ 136.32 Disallowance. ( a ) If it is determined that a hospital has submitted inaccurate information for payment, such as admission, discharge or billing data, an I/T/U may as appropriate— ( 1 ) Deny payment (in whole or in part) with respect to any such services, and;
( 2 ) Disallow costs previously paid, including any payments made under any methodology authorized under this subpart. The recovery of payments made in error may be taken by any method authorized by law.
( b ) For cost based payments previously issued under this subpart, if it is determined that actual costs fall significantly below the computed rate actually paid, the computed rate may be retrospectively adjusted. The recovery of overpayments made as a result of the adjusted rate may be taken by any method authorized by law.
# C_2005193EN.01003101.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/31

---

Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Jean-François Vivier against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-T-196/05)

(2005/C 193/51)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Jean-François Vivier, residing in Le Petten (Netherlands), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in grade A*6; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in grade A*6;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was recruited by the Commission as a temporary servant, in a post for which the level of responsibility had been fixed in the vacancy notice by reference to grades A7 to A4, which under the new system are equivalent to grades A*8 to A*12. Upon recruitment, however, his classification was fixed in grade A*6.

The applicant claims that that decision should be annulled; he maintains that it fails to take account of Article 9 of the Rules applicable to other servants, since he was recruited at a grade below the level of responsibility envisaged for his post. The applicant further contends that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, on which the Commission relies in order to justify its decision on classification, does not apply in his case, as he entered the service after 30 April 2004.

---
§ 597.702 Prepenalty notice. ( a ) *When required.* If the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control has reasonable cause to believe that there has occurred a violation of any provision of this part or a violation of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, direction or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part, and the Director, acting in coordination with the Attorney General, determines that civil penalty proceedings are warranted, the Director shall issue to the person concerned a notice of intent to impose a monetary penalty. The prepenalty notice shall be issued whether or not another agency has taken any action with respect to this matter.
( b ) *Contents* — ( 1 ) *Facts of violation.* The prepenalty notice shall describe the violation, specify the laws and regulations allegedly violated, and state the amount of the proposed monetary penalty.
( 2 ) *Right to respond.* The prepenalty notice also shall inform the respondent of respondent's right to respond within 30 days of mailing of the notice as to why a monetary penalty should not be imposed, or, if imposed, why it should be in a lesser amount than proposed.