alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 405.1022 Notice of a hearing before an ALJ. ( a ) *Issuing the notice.* After the ALJ sets the time and place of the hearing, notice of the hearing will be mailed or otherwise transmitted in accordance with OMHA procedures to the parties and other potential participants, as provided in § 405.1020(c) at their last known address, or given by personal service, except to a party or potential participant who indicates in writing that it does not wish to receive this notice. The notice is mailed, transmitted, or served at least 20 calendar days before the hearing unless the recipient agrees in writing to the notice being mailed, transmitted, or served fewer than 20 calendar days before the hearing.
( b ) *Notice information.* ( 1 ) The notice of hearing contains— ( i ) A statement that the issues before the ALJ include all of the issues brought out in the initial determination, redetermination, or reconsideration that were not decided entirely in a party's favor, for the claims specified in the request for hearing; and
( ii ) A statement of any specific new issues the ALJ will consider in accordance with § 405.1032.
( 2 ) The notice will inform the parties that they may designate a person to represent them during the proceedings.
( 3 ) The notice must include an explanation of the procedures for requesting a change in the time or place of the hearing, a reminder that the ALJ may dismiss the hearing request if the appellant fails to appear at the scheduled hearing without good cause, and other information about the scheduling and conduct of the hearing.
( 4 ) The appellant will also be told if his or her appearance or that of any other party or witness is scheduled by VTC, telephone, or in person. If the ALJ has scheduled the appellant or other party to appear at the hearing by VTC, the notice of hearing will advise that the scheduled place for the hearing is a VTC site and explain what it means to appear at the hearing by VTC.
( 5 ) The notice advises the appellant or other parties that if they object to appearing by VTC or telephone, and wish instead to have their hearing at a time and place where they may appear in person before the ALJ, they must follow the procedures set forth at § 405.1020(i) for notifying the ALJ of their objections and for requesting an in-person hearing.
( c ) *Acknowledging the notice of hearing.* ( 1 ) If the appellant, any other party to the reconsideration to whom the notice of hearing was sent, or their representative does not acknowledge receipt of the notice of hearing, OMHA attempts to contact the party for an explanation.
( 2 ) If the party states that he or she did not receive the notice of hearing, a copy of the notice is sent to him or her by certified mail or other means requested by the party and in accordance with OMHA procedures.
( 3 ) The party may request that the ALJ reschedule the hearing in accordance with § 405.1020(e).
[82 FR 5115, Jan. 17, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from AST
Research, Inc.'s First Quarter 1997 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jan-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          31,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,741
<INVENTORY>                                    139,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               508,360
<PP&E>                                         171,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                (76,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 697,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          656,857
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,780
<COMMON>                                           580
<OTHER-SE>                                   (124,202)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   697,385
<SALES>                                        346,942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               346,942
<CGS>                                          352,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  352,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (108,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (109,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.90)
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-469.

#### Karavan Trailers, Inc. *v.*Midwest Industries, Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Ginsburg v. Lavin et ux.

*David Berger,*for plaintiff.

*Robert J. Callaghan,*for defendants.

April 28, 1955.

Oliver, P. J.,

Plaintiff is a member of the Philadelphia bar who has brought suit to recover a fee allegedly due him for services rendered by him to wife defendant with the knowledge of husband defendant.'

Defendants have filed and. served upon plaintiff 21 written interrogatories, answers to which they de*645mand: Pa. R. C. P. 4005(a). Plaintiff has filed objections to these interrogatories (Pa. R. C. P. 4005 *(b))*on the grounds that answers to the proposed interrogatories would not be relevant to the issue, are sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyance and embarrassment to plaintiff.

The scope and effect of pretrial discovery under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, effective July 1, 1954, have been thoroughly considered and discussed by this court before.- See Zeldin et ah, etc. v. Penn Fruit Company, 89 D. & C. 313; Robbins, etc. v. Lashner, 1 D. & C. 2d 302. Therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to enter into a full discussion on the subject again.

We have considered the interrogatories carefully and have reached the following conclusions. Defendants are entitled to the names of all witnesses plaintiff intends to call at trial. (Interrogatory 20). They are entitled to know the number of hours plaintiff spent rendering legal services to wife defendant (part of interrogatory 1), and the time spent in telephone conversations with wife defendant (part of interrogatory 3) and with counsel for husband defendant (part of interrogatory 4). Defendants are also entitled to know the names and addresses of the certified public accountant, real estate appraiser, investigators, and Florida attorney allegedly employed by plaintiff in connection with his services rendered wife defendant, and the nature of the services performed by these persons. (Part of interrogatories 8, 9,10 and 11).

The other interrogatories are either irrelevant or would subject plaintiff to unreasonable annoyance and embarrassment. Plaintiff is not required to answer them: Pa. R. C. P. 4007, 4011.
#### § 405.812 Effective date for DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges.

If a CMS contractor, contractor hearing officer, or ALJ determines that a DMEPOS supplier's denied enrollment application meets the standards in § 424.57 of this chapter and any other requirements that may apply, the determination establishes the effective date of the billing privileges as not earlier than the date the carrier made the determination to deny the DMEPOS supplier's enrollment application. Claims are rejected for services furnished before that effective date.
#### ULTRA MARINE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Johanna J. BRYANT, Appellee.

No. 78-2044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 9, 1979.

Jesse W. Miller, North Miami, for appellant.

*614Bailey & Dawes and John H. Adams, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a negligence action in the trial court. After the court had entered a summary judgment on the issue of liability the cause continued to jury trial on the issue of damages. A verdict was returned in favor of the appellee/plain-tiff and a judgment awarded. This appellant contends that under the facts of the case the issue of liability was improperly removed from the province of the jury.

The suit was filed by Johanna J. Bryant, seeking damages for injuries claimed to have been sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of the operator of a boat, an employee of appellant, Ultra Marine Corporation, who was demonstrating the boat to Bryant. Ultra Marine answered, denying *inter alia :*that the boat ride was a “demonstration ride”; that the boat operator was acting within the scope of his employment; that the operator was guilty of negligence.

A review of the record reveals that the facts in the record at the time the trial court granted its summary judgment on the issue of liability were in conflict and reasonable men sitting on a jury could have reached different conclusions had they been permitted to hear all the facts. As concisely stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), at 43-44:

> “The rule simply is that the burden to prove the nonexistence of genuine triable issues is on the moving party, and the burden of proving the existence of such issue is not shifted to the opposing party until the movant has successfully met his burden.”

We conclude that the appellee has not met its burden of proof to overcome all reasonable inferences which could be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Genuine issues of material fact regarding scope of employment and negligence clearly remained unresolved at the time the summary judgment was granted in favor of the ap-pellee, thus, it was error to grant such.

Other points have been raised by appellant; however, in light of our opinion on the first point, we need not address those.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
oe
Z|
Cc
|
a A
r “ie
Orgs |
ee
{
1

Fishing

Deep Fork
National Wildlife Refuge

——— Proposed Refuge Boundary
‘HD Closed To Fishing
(1 Open To Fishing

12) Parking Aroa

1 ce eeteteraaaert at

(7) Private Land

Okmulgee
#### Tyrone GARDNER, Appellant, *v.*The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1247.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 9, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
§ 412.100 Special treatment: Kidney transplant programs. ( a ) *Adjustments for kidney transplant programs.* ( 1 ) CMS adjusts the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) rates for inpatient operating costs determined under subparts D and E of this part for hospitals with approved kidney transplant programs (discussed at § 482.104 of this chapter) to remove the net costs associated with kidney acquisition.
( 2 ) ( i ) Payment for Medicare kidney acquisition costs, as set forth in subpart L of part 413 of this chapter, is made on a reasonable cost basis apart from the prospective payment rate for inpatient operating costs.
( ii ) IPPS payment to the hospital is adjusted in each cost reporting period to reflect an amount necessary to compensate the hospital for reasonable costs of Medicare kidney acquisition.
( b ) Costs of kidney acquisition. Kidney acquisition costs include allowable costs incurred in the acquisition of a kidney from a living or a deceased donor by the hospital, or from a deceased donor by an organ procurement organization. These costs are listed in § 413.402(b) of this chapter.
[ 86 FR 73511, Dec. 27, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 72286, Nov. 23, 2022]
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. E. Paul BRIGMAN, Respondent.

No. 46177.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 15, 1975.

Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, Ron-aid A. Harbert and F. Hartzelle Baker, Orlando, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Paul Brigman, in pro per.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against E. Paul Brigman is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and Report of the Referee. The Referee’s report and record of the proceedings were duly filed with this Court pursuant to Rule 11.06(9) (b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. Respondent has not filed a petition for review pursuant to Rule 11.09, Integration Rule.

The respondent was charged with a six-count disciplinary violation stemming from a series of separate incidents. All matters were consolidated for hearing. The Referee dismissed two of the six counts against respondent but found him guilty of misconduct for: (1) accepting representation of beneficiaries of an estate while concurrently advising the executor of the estate, with whom the beneficiaries had a controversy, without the knowledge of his clients; (2) accepting $500.00 to procure a divorce for a client, thereafter doing nothing, and refusing to discuss the matter with his client ; (3) receiving funds from a client in a real estate closing in July of 1970 and refusing until February of 1971 to account for these funds; (4) accepting representation in an accident case for out-of-town clients, failing to communicate with them, and subsequently entering a voluntary dismissal of their cause without informing the clients.

The Referee found that the evidence presented on each of these four charges clearly established misconduct by the respondent. Although individually the offenses were not of great magnitude, in the aggregate they constituted a serious breach of ethics.

*162In determining the appropriate punishment, he further considered the total recalcitrance of the respondent, including his refusal to appear for the hearing, as well as the absence of redeeming circumstances. He recommended the following discipline:

> “ . . . [T]hat the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of six (6) months and thereafter until he shall satisfactorily prove his rehabilitation in a reinstatement proceeding.”

The findings and recommendations of the Referee are hereby approved, and the respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law under the terms and conditions of the Referee’s recommendations. See Rule 11.09(3) (f), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.

Execution is hereby directed to issue against respondent in the amount of $732.-28 for costs of these proceedings.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
§ 137.422 How is an informal conference held? ( a ) The informal conference must be held within 30 days of the date the request was received, unless the Indian Tribe and the authorized representative of the Secretary agree on another date.
( b ) If possible, the informal conference will be held at the Indian Tribe's office. If the meeting cannot be held at the Indian Tribe's office and is held more than fifty miles from its office, the Secretary must arrange to pay transportation costs and per diem for incidental expenses to allow for adequate representation of the Indian Tribe.
( c ) The informal conference must be conducted by a designated representative of the Secretary.
( d ) Only people who are the designated representatives of the Indian Tribe, or authorized by the Secretary are allowed to make presentations at the informal conference. Such designated representatives may include Office of Tribal Self-Governance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000702403
<NAME> DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1981-2 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         245,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               307,902
<PP&E>                                      39,719,805
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,555,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 523,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     366,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   523,826
<SALES>                                        309,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               319,042
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             75,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 137.206 Why does the IHS need this information?

This information will be used to comply with sections 513 [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-12] and 514 [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-13] of the Act as well as to assist IHS in advocating for the Indian health system, budget formulation, and other reporting required by statute, development of partnerships with other organizations that benefit the health status of Indian Tribes, and sharing of best practices.
Exhibit
32.1 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies in his capacity as an officer of InMedica Development Corporation (the
Company) that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10Q /A1   for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such periods and
the results of operations of the Company for such periods.








/s/ Ralph
Henson


Ralph
Henson,


Chief
Executive Officer


September
22 , 2008








/s/ Richard
Bruggeman


Richard
Bruggeman,


Chief
Financial Officer


September
26 ,  2008
§ 405.2110 Designation of ESRD networks. CMS designated ESRD networks in which the approved ESRD facilities collectively provide the necessary care for ESRD patients. ( a ) *Effect on patient choice of facility.* The designation of networks does not require an ESRD patient to seek care only through the facilities in the designated network where the patient resides, nor does the designation of networks limit patient choice of physicians or facilities, or preclude patient referral by physicians to a facility in another designated network.
( b ) *Redesignation of networks.* CMS will redesignate networks, as needed, to ensure that the designations are consistent with ESRD program experience, consistent with ESRD program objectives specified in § 405.2101, and compatible with efficient program administration.
[51 FR 30361, Aug. 26, 1986]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Departure of Canadian Diplomats from India

# 									Departure of Canadian Diplomats from India							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

October 20, 2023

We are concerned by the departure of Canadian diplomats from India, in response to the Indian government’s demand of Canada to significantly reduce its diplomatic presence in India.

Resolving differences requires diplomats on the ground. We have urged the Indian government not to insist upon a reduction in Canada’s diplomatic presence and to cooperate in the ongoing Canadian investigation. We expect India to uphold its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, including with respect to privileges and immunities enjoyed by accredited members of Canada’s diplomatic mission.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCanadaIndiaOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
### The Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program; background information to accompany folio of geologic, geophysical, geochemical, mineral-occurrence, mineral-resource potential, and mineral-production maps of the Charlotte 1 degree x 2 degrees Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina

By: Jacob Eugene GairRichard GoldsmithD. L. DanielsW. R. GriffittsJ. H. DeYoungM. P. Lee

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir944

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23

(RS LOGO) RYDER SCOTT COMPANY                                FAX (303) 623-4258
          ---------------------
          PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS

<Table>
<S>                       <C>
600 SEVENTEENTH STREET    SUITE 161ON    DENVER, COLORADO 80202-5416    TELEPHONE (303) 623-9147
</Table>









                      CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


         We consent to the use on the Form 10-K of Sterling Gas Drilling Fund
1982 of our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto
incorporated by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to us on Form
10-K as a result of such incorporation.

                                          Very truly yours,


                                          /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.



Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2003








<Table>
<S>                               <C>
1100 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3800        HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218        TEL (713) 651-9191        FAX (713) 651-0849
3700, 700-2ND STREET, S.W.        CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 2W2         TEL (403) 262-2799        FAX (403) 262-2790
</Table>