alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2.14 Minor patients. ( a ) *State law not requiring parental consent to treatment.* If a minor patient acting alone has the legal capacity under the applicable state law to apply for and obtain substance use disorder treatment, any written consent for use or disclosure authorized under subpart C of this part may be given only by the minor patient. This restriction includes, but is not limited to, any disclosure of patient identifying information to the parent or guardian of a minor patient for the purpose of obtaining financial reimbursement. The regulations in this paragraph (a) do not prohibit a part 2 program from refusing to provide treatment until the minor patient consents to a use or disclosure that is necessary to obtain reimbursement, but refusal to provide treatment may be prohibited under a state or local law requiring the program to furnish the service irrespective of ability to pay.
( b ) *State law requiring parental consent to treatment.* ( 1 ) Where state law requires consent of a parent, guardian, or other person for a minor to obtain treatment for a substance use disorder, any written consent for use or disclosure authorized under subpart C of this part must be given by both the minor and their parent, guardian, or other person authorized under state law to act on the minor's behalf.
( 2 ) Where state law requires parental consent to treatment, the fact of a minor's application for treatment may be communicated to the minor's parent, guardian, or other person authorized under state law to act on the minor's behalf only if: ( i ) The minor has given written consent to the disclosure in accordance with subpart C of this part; or
( ii ) The minor lacks the capacity to make a rational choice regarding such consent as determined by the part 2 program director under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Minor applicant for services lacks capacity for rational choice.* Facts relevant to reducing a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or any other person may be disclosed to the parent, guardian, or other person authorized under state law to act on the minor's behalf if the part 2 program director determines that: ( 1 ) A minor applicant for services lacks capacity because of extreme youth or mental or physical condition to make a rational decision on whether to consent to a disclosure under subpart C of this part to their parent, guardian, or other person authorized under state law to act on the minor's behalf; and
( 2 ) The minor applicant's situation poses a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or any other person which may be reduced by communicating relevant facts to the minor's parent, guardian, or other person authorized under state law to act on the minor's behalf.
[82 FR 6115, Jan. 18, 2017, as amended at 89 FR 12621, Feb. 16, 2024]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3111

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of

frequent flyer mileage awards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 19, 1996

Mrs. KENNELLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

the treatment of frequent flyer mileage awards.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF FREQUENT

4 FLYER MILEAGE AND AWARDS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended

7 by redesignating section 137 as section 138 and by insert8 ing after section 136 the following new section:
2

•HR 3111 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 137. FREQUENT FLYER MILEAGE AND AWARDS.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an individual receives a fre3 quent flyer benefit as a result of the purchase in a trade

4 or business of property or services—

5 ‘‘(1) no amount shall be includable in such indi6 vidual’s gross income by reason of receiving such

7 benefit,

8 ‘‘(2) no deduction otherwise allowable for the

9 purchase of such property or services shall be re10 duced by reason of such benefit, and

11 ‘‘(3) no deduction shall be allowed for the por12 tion of any transportation purchased using such a

13 benefit.

14 ‘‘(b) FREQUENT FLYER BENEFIT.—For purposes of

15 this section, the term ‘frequent flyer benefit’ means any

16 right to receive (or the receipt of) air transportation serv17 ices or other benefit for an individual for free or at a re18 duced cost by reason of prior purchases of property or

19 services. Such term shall include such a right only if the

20 value of such right is de minimis relative to the cost of

21 property or services purchased in order to receive such

22 right.’’

23 (b) CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT UNDER REIM24 BURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.—Subsection (c) of section

25 62 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol26 lowing new flush sentence:
3

•HR 3111 IH

1 ‘‘An arrangement shall not be treated as described in

2 paragraph (2) merely because it permits the employee to

3 retain a frequent flyer benefit (as defined in section

4 137(b)).’’

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

6 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code

7 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the fol8 lowing new items:

‘‘Sec. 137. Frequent flyer mileage and awards.

‘‘Sec. 138. Cross references to other Acts.’’

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the

11 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### INLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. S. I. GOLDMAN MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC., Appellee.

No. 74-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Frederick T. Pfeiffer, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IB

Union Calendar No. 239

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3049

[Report No. 104–505]

To amend section 1505 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide

for the continuity of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of American

Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1996

Mr. GOODLING (for himself and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

MARCH 28, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend section 1505 of the Higher Education Act of

1965 to provide for the continuity of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3049 RH

1 SECTION 1. CONTINUITY OF BOARD.

2 Section 1505(i) of the Higher Education Amend3 ments of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4412(i)) is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the pe5 riod at the end of the first sentence the following:

6 ‘‘or to recommend another individual if the member

7 does not consent to be reappointed’’; and

8 (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the

9 following:

10 ‘‘(2) If the President has not transmitted to the

11 Senate a nomination to fill the position of a member

12 covered by such a recommendation within 60 days

13 from the date that the member’s term expires—

14 ‘‘(A) if the member consents to reappoint15 ment, the member shall be deemed to have been

16 reappointed for another full term to the Board,

17 with all the appropriate rights and responsibil18 ities; or

19 ‘‘(B) if the member does not consent to re20 appointment, an individual recommended by the

21 Board under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to

22 have been appointed for a full term to the

23 Board with all the appropriate rights and

24 responsibilities.’’.

Union Calendar No. 239

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3049

[Report No. 104–505]

A BILL

To amend section 1505 of the Higher Education

velopment.Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts DeBoard of Trustees of the Institute of AmericanAct of 1965 to provide for the continuity of the

MARCH 28, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
# C_2005229EN.01002101.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/21

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 July 2005

in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act against which proceedings may be brought - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/45)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-17/04: Front national, established in Saint-Cloud (France), Marie-France Stirbois, residing at Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Bruno Gollnisch, residing at Limonest (France), Carl Lang, residing at Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, residing at Overijse (Belgium), Koen Dillen, residing at Antwerp (Belgium), Mario Borghezio, residing at Turin (Italy), represented by W. de Saint-Just, lawyer, against European Parliament (agents: MM. H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Council of the European Union (agents: M. Sims and. I. Díez Parra) — application for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2002 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | the applicants are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

1

---
#### Bill B. GRIER, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 47426.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 9, 1975.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 801.209 Pilot program covered investment. The term *pilot program covered investment* means an investment, direct or indirect, by a foreign person in an unaffiliated pilot program U.S. business that could not result in control by a foreign person of a pilot program U.S. business and that affords the foreign person: ( a ) Access to any material nonpublic technical information in the possession of the pilot program U.S. business;
( b ) Membership or observer rights on the board of directors or equivalent governing body of the pilot program U.S. business or the right to nominate an individual to a position on the board of directors or equivalent governing body of the pilot program U.S. business; or
( c ) Any involvement, other than through voting of shares, in substantive decisionmaking of the pilot program U.S. business regarding the use, development, acquisition, or release of critical technology.
#### William H. OLIVER v. DIAMOND T. FARMS, INC., et al.

No. 52091.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 1980.

Eddie H. Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.

Conrad Mord, Macon, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Noxubee County; W. W. Brand, Jr., Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1001.601 Exclusion or suspension under a Federal or State health care program. ( a ) *Circumstance for exclusion.* ( 1 ) The OIG may exclude an individual or entity suspended or excluded from participation, or otherwise sanctioned, under— ( i ) Any Federal program involving the provision of health care, or
( ii ) A State health care program, for reasons bearing on the individual's or entity's professional competence, professional performance or financial integrity.
( 2 ) The term “or otherwise sanctioned” in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is intended to cover all actions that limit the ability of a person to participate in the program at issue regardless of what such an action is called, and includes situations where an individual or entity voluntarily withdraws from a program to avoid a formal sanction.
( b ) *Length of exclusion.* ( 1 ) An exclusion imposed in accordance with this section will not be for a period of time less than the period during which the individual or entity is excluded or suspended from a Federal or State health care program.
( 2 ) Any of the following factors may be considered aggravating and a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion— ( i ) The acts that resulted in the exclusion, suspension or other sanction under Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs had, or could have had, a significant adverse impact on Federal or State health care programs or the beneficiaries of those programs or other individuals;
( ii ) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil or administrative wrongdoing; or
( iii ) The individual or entity has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State or local government agency or board, if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion.
( 3 ) Only if any of the aggravating factors listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section justifies a longer exclusion may a mitigating factor be considered as a basis for reducing the period of exclusion to a period not less than that set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Only the following factor may be considered mitigating: The individual's or entity's cooperation with Federal or State officials resulted in— ( i ) The sanctioning of other individuals or entities, or
( ii ) Additional cases being investigated or reports being issued by the appropriate law enforcement agency identifying program vulnerabilities or weaknesses.
( 4 ) If the individual or entity is eligible to apply for reinstatement in accordance with § 1001.3001 and the sole reason why the State or Federal health care program denied reinstatement to that program is the existing exclusion imposed by the OIG as a result of the original State or Federal health care program action, the OIG will consider a request for reinstatement.
[57 FR 3330, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 46688, Sept. 2, 1998; 82 FR 4114, Jan. 12, 2017]
# Kenya

215 items

        -    Report  		Kenya	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kenya	  June 28, 2018 
        -    DSS Articles  		DSS Investigator Coordinates Rescue of Dozens from Somali Re-Acculturation Facilities in Kenya	  June 26, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kenya	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kenya	  April 20, 2018 
        -    		Specific Instance Between Jamaa Resources Initiatives and a U.S. Company for Conduct in Kenya	  November 24, 2017 
        -    Report  		2017 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  November 16, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Kenya (17-1006) – Agreement Regarding Mutual Assistance Between their Customs Administrations	  October 6, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kenya	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kenya	  June 29, 2017 

previous page1…1819202122next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Kazakhstani Special Presidential Representative Kazykhan

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Kazakhstani Special Presidential Representative Kazykhan							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

January 23, 2023

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman met in Washington with Kazakhstani Special Presidential Representative for International Cooperation Erzhan Kazykhan and underscored the United States’ enduring commitment to Kazakhstan’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

The Deputy Secretary expressed appreciation for the Kazakhstani people’s humanitarian support to the people of Ukraine and commended Kazakhstan’s support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Deputy Secretary Sherman emphasized the United States’ commitment to being a reliable partner in the region and encouraged Kazakhstan’s economic and security diversification, including through its bilateral partnerships and multilateral formats such as the C5+1.

The two also discussed President Tokayev’s political reform agenda, as well as the United States’ support for its full implementation, which will foster a strong, prosperous, and secure Kazakhstan and Central Asian region.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateKazakhstanOffice of the Spokesperson

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
# C_2005188EN.01001102.xml

| 2.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3832 — MatlinPatterson L.P./Matussière & Forest)

(2005/C 188/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 July 2005, 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site 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 under document number 32005M3832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 2a.3 Application; coordination. ( a ) Any person engaged in (or who intends to engage in) the research to which this part applies, who desires authorization to withhold the names and other identifying characteristics of individuals who are the subject of such research from any person or authority not connected with the conduct of such research may apply to the Office of the Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of the Director, National Institute of Mental Health, or the Office of the Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 for an authorization of confidentiality.
( b ) If there is uncertainty with regard to which Institute is appropriate or if the research project falls within the purview of more than one Institute, an application need be submitted only to one Institute. Persons who are uncertain with regard to the applicability of these regulations to a particular type of research may apply for an authorization of confidentiality under the regulations of this part to one of the Institutes. Requests which are within the scope of the authorities described in § 2a.1(b) will be forwarded to the appropriate agency for consideration and the person will be advised accordingly.
( c ) An application may accompany, precede, or follow the sumission of a request for DHHS grant or contract assistance, though it is not necessary to request DHHS grant or contract assistance in order to apply for a Confidentiality Certificate. If a person has previously submitted any information required in this part in connection with a DHHS grant or contract, he or she may substitute a copy of information thus submitted, if the information is current and accurate. If a person requests a Confidentiality Certificate at the same time he or she submits an application for DHHS grant or contract assistance, the application for a Confidentiality Certificate may refer to the pertinent section(s) of the DHHS grant or contract application which provide(s) the information required to be submitted under this part. (See §§ 2a.4 and 2a.5.)
( d ) A separate application is required for each research project for which an authorization of confidentiality is requested.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10509]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7863]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Rembrandt, Van Dyck, Gainsborough: The Treasures of 
Kenwood House, London''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Rembrandt, Van Dyck, Gainsborough: The 
Treasures of Kenwood House, London,'' imported from abroad by the 
American Federation of Arts for temporary exhibition within the United 
States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant 
to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
following Federation member venues for the following approximate 
periods is in the national interest: the Museum of Fine Arts Houston 
from on or about June 3 to on or about September 4, 2012; the Milwaukee 
Museum of Art from on or about October 4, 2012 to on or about January 
6, 2013; the Seattle Art Museum from on or about February 14, 2013 to 
on or about May 19, 2013; the Arkansas Art Center from on or about June 
6, 2013 to on or about September 8, 2013; and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 25, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-10509 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```