alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ILLEGAL SUSPENSION OF A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE.

Court of Appeals for Jefferson County.

#### City of Steubenville v. Henry Bougher.

Decided, December Term, 1916.

*Civil Service*— Sealer *of Weights and Measures May Not he Removed for Lack of Funds to Pay Him*— ■Authority *of the Director of Public Service.*

1. Where a sealer of weights and measures has ¡been appointed by the mayor of a municipal corporation, such officer is subject to the rules of the civil service, and can only be suspended or removed in accordance with the provisions of the civil service act. 105, 106 O. L„ 411.

2. Said act does not permit a removal or suspension of such officer • by reason of a shortage of funds to pay his salary.

3. The director of public service has no authority to make such suspension or removal. ■

*F. E. Morrow,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. L. Williams,*contra.

Metcalfe, J.

The defendant in error was appointed sealer of weights and measures of the city of Steubenville by the mayor of that city, and as such appointee he is subject to the regulations of the civil service act. 105-106 O. L., 411.

A shortage of funds with which to pay his and other salaries occurred in the city treasury, and alleging such shortage as a reason for his action the director of public service issued an order suspending Mr. Bougher from his office indefinitely.

This action was brought by Mr. Bougher to recover his salary, and it is contended that he could only be suspended or removed in accordance with the regulations of the civil service act, and, that in any event, the director of public service had no power to suspend or remove him.

*416Section 486-17 of the civil service act, *supra,*provides':

> “In cases of reduction, lay-off or suspension of an employee or subordinate, whether appointed for a definite term or otherwise, the appointing authority shall furnish such employee or subordinate with a copy of the order of lay-off, reduction or suspension and his reasons for the same, and give such employee or subordinate a reasonable time in which to make and file an explanation. ’ ’

The appointing authority in the case of the defendant in error is the mayor, and the appointment appears to have been legally made by such officer; hence the provisions above cited applies to him, and hence he could not be arbitrarily suspended indefi-. nitely for any reason, but has the right to an explanation of any charge made against him and to a trial in accordance with the further provisions of the act.

We find no provision in the act authorizing or permitting the suspension of an officer or employee for the reaspn that there is a shortage of funds in the treasury. The appointing and removing power resting in the mayor it follows that the action of the director of public service was a usurpation of such power and his action absolutely void.

Judgment affirmed.

Pollock, J., and Farr, J., concur.
§ 412.300 Scope of subpart and definition. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart implements section 1886(g)(1)(A) of the Act by establishing a prospective payment system for inpatient hospital capital-related costs. Under this system, payment is made on the basis described in § 412.304 through § 412.374 for inpatient hospital capital-related costs furnished by hospitals subject to the prospective payment system under subpart B of this part.
( b ) *Definition.* For purposes of this subpart, a new hospital means a hospital that has operated (under previous or present ownership) for less than 2 years. The following hospitals are not new hospitals: ( 1 ) A hospital that builds new or replacement facilities at the same or another location even if coincidental with a change of ownership, a change in management, or a lease arrangement.
( 2 ) A hospital that closes and subsequently reopens.
( 3 ) A hospital that has been in operation for more than 2 years but has participated in the Medicare program for less than 2 years.
( 4 ) A hospital that changes its status from a hospital that is excluded from the prospective payment systems to a hospital that is subject to the capital prospective payment systems.
[56 FR 43449, Aug. 30, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 39827, Sept. 1, 1992]
###### Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

#### § 405.1815 Parties to proceedings before the contractor hearing officer(s).

When a provider files a request for a contractor hearing in accordance with § 405.1811 of this subpart, the parties to all proceedings before the contractor hearing officer(s) are the provider and, if applicable, any other entity found by the contractor hearing officer(s) to be a related organization of the provider under the principles enunciated in § 413.17 of this chapter. The parties must be given reasonable notice of the time, date, and place of any contractor hearing. Neither the contractor nor CMS may be made a party to proceedings before the contractor hearing officer(s).

[73 FR 30246, May 23, 2008]
#### § 403.302 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart—

*Chief executive officer of a State* means the Governor of the State or the Governor's designee.

*Existing demonstration project* refers to demonstration projects approved by CMS under the authority of section 402(a) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1) or section 222(a) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1 (note)) and in effect on April 20, 1983 (the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 98-21 (Social Security Amendments of 1983)).

*Federal hospital* means a hospital that is administered by, or that is under exclusive contract with, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, or the Indian Health Service.

*State system* or *system* refers to a State reimbursement control system that is approved by CMS under the authority of section 1886(c) of the Act and that satisfies the requirements described in this subpart.
§ 599.513 Transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non-commercial use. ( a ) All transactions prohibited by this part that are related to the provision, directly or indirectly, of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part are authorized, provided the items are in quantities consistent with personal, non-commercial use.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices are defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Agricultural commodities.* For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities are: ( i ) Products that fall within the term “agricultural commodity” as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
( ii ) That are intended for ultimate use as: ( A ) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
( B ) Seeds for food crops;
( C ) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
( D ) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
( 2 ) *Medicine.* For the purposes of this section, medicine is an item that falls within the definition of the term “drug” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
( 3 ) *Medical devices.* For the purposes of this section, a medical device is an item that falls within the definition of “device” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
Note 1 to § 599.513 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78507, Dec. 21, 2022]
# Lebanon

242 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 22, 2023	  Matthew MillerMay 22, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 15, 2023	  Vedant PatelMay 15, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance’s Solidarity Visit to Lebanon	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2023	  Vedant PatelMay 2, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		The Situation in Lebanon	  Matthew MillerMay 1, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		40th Anniversary of the Embassy Beirut Bombing	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 18, 2023 
        -    Video Remarks  		40th Anniversary of the U.S. Embassy Beirut Bombing	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 18, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on Hizballah Leader Ibrahim Aqil	  April 18, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 6, 2023	  Vedant PatelApril 6, 2023 

previous page1…45678…25next page

Back to Top
No. 99-516.

#### Wisdom *v.*Ward, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Angolan Foreign Minister Antonio

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Angolan Foreign Minister Antonio							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 15, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with Foreign Minister of Angola Tete Antonio yesterday in Washington, D.C. on the margins of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. Deputy Secretary Sherman reiterated the importance the United States places on its relationship with Angola and expressed appreciation for Angola’s role as a regional leader, including its efforts to bring peace to eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Deputy Secretary Sherman and Foreign Minister Antonio also discussed their shared priorities for the ongoing U.S-Africa Leaders Summit.

Tags

Africa Leaders SummitAngolaBureau of African AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
# C_2005296EN.01000502.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-9/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in criminal proceedings against Geharo BV (1)

1

(Directive 88/378/EEC - Toys - Directive 91/338/EEC - Maximum cadmium content permitted)

(2005/C 296/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-9/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 23 December 2003, received at the Court on 12 January 2004, in criminal proceedings against Geharo BV — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

Declares that, the second sentence of Article 1 of Council Directive 91/338/EEC of 18 June 1991 amending for the 10th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the prohibition in that Directive of the marketing of products with a cadmium content in excess of an authorised maximum amount from applying to toys covered by Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Biovest International, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K),
I, Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., M.D., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: July 8, 2010



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., M.D.              
|Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., M.D.                  
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Biovest International, Inc. under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELIZABETH SNYDER, as the daughter and authorized agent of

Judith Goldstein,

Appellant,

v.

MERIDIAN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1144

[March 3, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502018CA012381XXXXMB(AA).

Peter J. Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez and Vilma Martinez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & 

Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

GROSS, J.

Elizabeth Snyder disagreed with appellee Meridian Park Village Limited 

Partnership concerning her access to her 92-year-old mother. She moved 

for an injunction pursuant to sections 400.022 and 400.023, Florida 

Statutes (2019).1 The case was resolved by a written settlement agreement 

on May 8, 2019. 

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Florida’s Governor issued Executive Order 20-52 and the Division of 

Emergency Management entered Emergency Order 20-006. One effect of 

the Orders was to curtail Snyder’s access to her mother as set forth in the 

settlement agreement. Snyder filed an emergency motion to enforce the 

settlement agreement.

1 Although Snyder referenced sections 400.422 and 400.423, Florida Statutes, in 

her request for an injunction, it appears that she meant to refer to sections 

400.022 and 400.023.
2

We have carefully reviewed the thoughtful order of the circuit court and 

conclude that it acted reasonably to address Snyder’s concerns amid the 

constraints imposed by the pandemic. 

We do not reach an issue Snyder raised on appeal—that the Governor 

lacked the authority to suspend the rights provided by section 400.022—

because she did not raise this issue in the circuit court.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., and ARTAU, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process

because he: (1) received advance written notice of the charges; (2) received a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action; and (3) was provided a qualified right to call witnesses and present evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974). Confrontation and cross-examination in prison disciplinary proceedings are not required because these procedures present "greater hazards to institutional interests." Id. at 567-68. Thus, appellant had no right to call the victim as a witness or to learn the identity of another inmate who witnessed the assault. See id. While appellant discussed the possibility of calling character witnesses to testify that he was not homosexual, the prison disciplinary hearing officer considered the substance of the testimony that the witnesses would have offered and found that the testimony was not relevant because it would not have disproved that appellant assaulted his cellmate. Thus, appellant did not demonstrate that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses or that the lack of character witnesses at his hearing deprived him of due process. To the extent that appellant challenged the evidence of his guilt, due process requires only that "some evidence" must support the disciplinary hearing officer's decision; this "some evidence" standard is met if there was "any

. . . continued challenges were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (holding that liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 41f0(4,evidence in the record that could support the conclusion" of the hearing

officer and does not require the district court to examine the entire record, make any credibility assessments, or weigh any of the evidence. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Here, some evidence supported the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, id. at 455, and the sanctions imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

/
, J. Hardesty

Douglas 

## '°61r1

, P

'‘ J.

J. Cherry

3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A 

### ecc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge Kenneth J. Schiro Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4

(0) 1947A costfp
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1200 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements section 1848(p) of the Act by establishing a payment modifier that provides for differential payment starting in 2015 to a group of physicians and starting in 2017 to a group and a solo practitioner under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule based on the quality of care furnished compared to cost during a performance period.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the following: ( 1 ) The application of the value-based payment modifier.
( 2 ) Performance and payment adjustment periods.
( 3 ) Reporting mechanisms for the value-based payment modifier.
( 4 ) Alignment of PQRS quality of care measures with the quality measures for the value-based payment modifier.
( 5 ) Additional measures for groups and solo practitioners.
( 6 ) Cost measures.
( 7 ) Attribution for quality of care and cost measures.
( 8 ) Scoring methods for the value-based payment modifier.
( 9 ) Benchmarks for quality of care measures.
( 10 ) Benchmarks for cost measures.
( 11 ) Composite scores.
( 12 ) Reliability of measures.
( 13 ) Payment adjustments.
( 14 ) Value-based payment modifier quality-tiering scoring methodology.
( 15 ) Limitation of review.
( 16 ) Inquiry process.
[77 FR 69368, Nov. 16, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 68005, Nov. 13, 2014]
HomeSweden

# Sweden

253 items

        -    TIAS  		Sweden (17-628) – Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Defense Test and Evaluation Program Cooperation	  June 28, 2017 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden 16-1102 – Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Crime	  November 2, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (16-927.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 27, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (15-1006) – Agreement Amending and Extending the Space Agreement of October 14, 2005 for Cooperative Activities in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes	  October 6, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (15-311) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  March 11, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (11-919) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 19, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (11-519) – Implementing Arrangement for Cooperation in Aeronautic and Space Research Using Nanosatellite Technologies	  May 19, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Sweden (11-418) – Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Projects	  April 18, 2011 

previous page1…2223242526next page

Back to Top
§ 402.200 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart is based on the sections of the Act that are specified in § 402.1(e).
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart— ( 1 ) Provides for the imposition of an exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs (and, where applicable, other Federal health care programs) against persons that violate the provisions of the Act provided in § 402.1(e) (and further described in § 402.1(c)); and
( 2 ) Sets forth the appeal rights of persons subject to exclusion and the procedures for reinstatement following exclusion.
#### Major Lee JACKSON and Hattie Mae Jackson, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. Allen R. GREENWALD and Jill F. Greenwald, his wife, Appellees.

No. 73-1259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 16, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.