alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 416.35 Termination of agreement. ( a ) *Termination by the ASC* — ( 1 ) *Notice to CMS.* An ASC that wishes to terminate its agreement must send CMS written notice of its intent.
( 2 ) *Date of termination.* The notice may state the intended date of termination which must be the first day of a calendar month. ( i ) If the notice does not specify a date, or the date is not acceptable to CMS, CMS may set a date that will not be more than 6 months from the date on the ASC's notice of intent.
( ii ) CMS may accept a termination date that is less than 6 months after the date on the ASC's notice if it determines that to do so would not unduly disrupt services to the community or otherwise interfere with the effective and efficient administration of the Medicare program.
( 3 ) *Voluntary termination.* If an ASC ceases to furnish services to the community, that shall be deemed to be a voluntary termination of the agreement by the ASC, effective on the last day of business with Medicare beneficiaries.
( b ) *Termination by CMS* — ( 1 ) *Cause for termination.* CMS may terminate an agreement if it determines that the ASC— ( i ) No longer meets the conditions for coverage as specified under § 416.26; or
( ii ) Is not in substantial compliance with the provisions of the agreement, the requirements of this subpart, and other applicable regulations of subchapter B of this chapter, or any applicable provisions of title XVIII of the Act.
( 2 ) *Notice of termination.* CMS sends notice of termination to the ASC at least 15 days before the effective date stated in the notice.
( 3 ) *Appeal by the ASC.* An ASC may appeal the termination of its agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth in part 498 of this chapter.
( c ) *Effect of termination.* Payment is not available for ASC services furnished on or after the effective date of termination.
( d ) *Notice to the public.* Prompt notice of the date and effect of termination is given to the public by— ( 1 ) The ASC, after CMS has approved or set a termination date; or
( 2 ) CMS, when it has terminated the agreement.
( e ) *Conditions for reinstatement after termination of agreement by CMS.* When an agreement with an ASC is terminated by CMS, the ASC may not file another agreement to participate in the Medicare program unless CMS— ( 1 ) Finds that the reason for the termination of the prior agreement has been removed; and
( 2 ) Is assured that the reason for the termination will not recur.
[47 FR 34094, Aug. 5, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 22454, June 12, 1987; 56 FR 8844, Mar. 1, 1991; 61 FR 40347, Aug. 2, 1996; 82 FR 38515, Aug. 14, 2017]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3186

To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in Overland,

Missouri, as the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 1996

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson

Road in Overland, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis

Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road

5 in Overland, Missouri, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
2

•HR 3186 IH

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

2 a reference to the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 413

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

#### § 413.202 Organ procurement organization (OPO) cost for kidneys sent to foreign countries or transplanted in patients other than Medicare beneficiaries.

An OPO's total costs for all kidneys is reduced by the costs associated with procuring kidneys sent to foreign transplant centers or transplanted in patients other than Medicare beneficiaries. OPOs, as defined in § 486.302 of this chapter, must separate costs for procuring kidneys that are sent to foreign transplant centers and kidneys transplanted in patients other than Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare allowable costs prior to final settlement by the Medicare fiscal contractors. Medicare costs are based on the ratio of the number of usable kidneys transplanted into Medicare beneficiaries to the total number of usable kidneys applied to reasonable costs. Certain long-standing arrangements that existed before March 3, 1988 (for example, an OPO that procures kidneys at a military transplant hospital for transplant at that hospital), will be deemed to be Medicare kidneys for cost reporting statistical purposes. The OPO must submit a request to the contractor for review and approval of these arrangements.

[62 FR 43668, Aug. 15, 1997, as amended at 71 FR 31046, May 31, 2006]
# Madagascar

53 items

        -    Report  		Madagascar	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		2017 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  November 16, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Madagascar (17-822) – Air Transport Agreement	  August 22, 2017 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		Fiscal Transparency Innovation Fund Program Evaluation [PDF]	  April 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Madagascar	  March 3, 2017 

previous page1…3456next page

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 235.3 Settlement of claims.

Upon receipt of a claim by a payee or special indorsee on a check determined to have been paid on a forged indorsement under conditions satisfying the provisions set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3343, accountable officers of the United States, with respect to a check drawn on designated depositaries of the United States, in dollars or in foreign currency, shall cause to be issued a settlement check in the appropriate currency to the payee or special indorsee.

[40 FR 6785, Feb. 14, 1975, as amended at 49 FR 47001, 47002, Nov. 30, 1984; 54 FR 35642, Aug. 29, 1989]
HomeQatar

# Qatar

214 items

        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Qatar	  December 28, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Qatar	  September 8, 2020 
        -    TIAS  		Qatar (20-827) – Air Transport Agreement	  August 27, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Qatar	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Qatar	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Qatar	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Qatar	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Qatar	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Qatar	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Qatar	  June 20, 2019 

previous page1…1819202122next page

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 45187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting:  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Friday, September 25, 2009.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status:  Closed.

Matters to be Considered:  Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-21151 Filed 8-28-09; 12:00 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
HomeLebanon

# Lebanon

239 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 3, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 3, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 11, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Lebanon	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Lebanon National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 22, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – November 7, 2023	  Vedant PatelNovember 7, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Lebanese Caretaker Prime Minister Mikati	  November 4, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 2, 2023Joint Base Andrews 
        -    Press Statement  		One Year Anniversary of Lebanon’s Presidential Vacancy	  Matthew MillerOctober 31, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 26, 2023	  Matthew MillerOctober 26, 2023WASHINGTON, D.C. 

previous page1234…24next page

Back to Top
#### THE UNITED STATES v. CONRAD S. BABCOCK. THE UNITED STATES v. HERBERT B. HAYDEN.

[Not reported in C. Cls. R.; 250 U. S., 328.]

Judgment was delivered in favor of the claimants in the court below. On appeal the judgments were reversed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The act of March 3, 1885, chapter 335, 23 Statutes, 350, authorizing payment, after examination and determination by the accounting officers of the Treasury, of claims for property belonging to officers and enlisted men and lost or destroyed in the military service under certain circumstances, provides “ that any claim which shall be presented and acted on under authority of this act shall be held as finally determined and shall never thereafter be reopened or considered.” *Reld,*that this proviso clearly confers exclusive and final jurisdiction on the Treasury Department, so that claims under the act are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. *United States*v. *Laughlin,*249 U. S., 440, distinguished.

*202Under the acts of January 9, 1883, chapter 15, 22 Statutes, 401, and August 13, 1888, chapter 868, 25 Statutes, 437, the right to present claims for the loss, etc., of horses in the military service, under section 3482, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of June 22,1874, chapter 395, 18 Statutes, 193, expired in 1891.

Mr. Justice BraNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 2, 1919.
#### § 35.16 Autopsies and other post-mortem operations.

Autopsies, or other post-mortem operations, including removal of tissue for transplanting, may be performed on the body of a deceased patient only by direction of the officer in charge and only if consented to in writing by a person authorized under the law of the State in which the station or hospital is located to permit an autopsy or such other post-mortem operation under the circumstances of the particular death involved. Restrictions or limitations imposed by the person consenting thereto on the extent of the autopsy or other post-mortem operation shall be observed. Documents embodying consent shall be made a part of the clinical record.

[25 FR 6331, July 6, 1960]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      3,138,600
<SECURITIES>                                2,844,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,983,500
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,019,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         114,500
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  5,903,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               92,700
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               40,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                52,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            52,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   52,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.61



</TABLE>
#### Robert P. WHITNEY, Appellant, v. Gladys WHITNEY, Appellee.

No. 79-2265.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Jeff Tomberg of Law Offices of Tomberg & Tomberg, P. A., Boynton Beach, for appellant.

Jeffrey B. Stephens, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution entered October 4, 1979, awarding custody of the parties’ two minor children, Robin, born October 23, 1971, and Bernard, born August 26, 1974, to their mother. We affirm.

Temporary custody had been awarded to the father on December 11, 1978. At final hearing the trial judge concluded that both *1352parties were loving and caring parents. He was concerned, however, with the ability of the wife, residing in Vermont, and the husband, residing in Florida, to supervise and care for the children.

The husband testified that while he had custody of the children he woke them at 5:45 a. m. He drove the children to school and on their return from school a neighbor supervised them until the husband returned at 5:00 or 5:15 p. m. from the job he had at the time of final hearing.

The wife testified that she worked at home, making chimes. Her presence in the home and availability to supervise the children personally were apparently very important factors in the trial court's decision.

As the supreme court said in *Dinkel v. Dinkel,*322 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1975):

> It is the function of the trial judge in a child custody proceeding to determine what is in the best interests of the child. An appellate court should not reverse the trial judge’s findings absent a showing of abuse of discretion.

> * * * * * *

> Were this Court to sit as a trier of fact and hear all the evidence, we might have reached a conclusion different from that of the trial judge. However, neither this Court nor the District Court can substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, absent a finding of an abuse of discretion, which requires a lack of competent substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the trial judge.

The record contains ample support for the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
#### § 6.14 Decision.

The adjudicative officer shall issue an initial decision on the application within 60 days after completion of proceedings on the application. The decision shall include written findings and conclusions on the applicant's eligibility and status as a prevailing party, and an explanation of the reasons for any difference between the amount requested and the amount awarded. The decision shall also include, if at issue, findings on whether the agency's position was substantially justified, whether the applicant unduly protracted the proceedings, or whether special circumstances make an award unjust.
#### Elry V. NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. AD-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1981.

Michael Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard A. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*1249PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Williams v. State,*400 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981).

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ„ concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21551]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-19]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Section 811 Housing for Persons With Disabilities 
(Section 811 Program)

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
application information, deadline information and other requirements 
for the FY2009 Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with 
Disabilities (Section 811 Program). Approximately $90.6 million in 
capital advance funds plus associated project rental assistance 
contract (PRAC) funds is made available through this NOFA, by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 
(Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009) and any carryover funds 
available. The notice providing information regarding the application 
process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on 
the Grants.gov Web site at http://apply07.grants.gov/aaply/forms_app_idx.html. A link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web site at 
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of 
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the Section 811 
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811 Program) 
is 14.181. Applications must be submitted electronically through 
Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Section 
811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, contact 
Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant Policy and 
Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410; 
telephone number 202-402-2480 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons 
with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via 
TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during 
working hours at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: August 20, 2009.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary of Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E9-21551 Filed 9-2-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
No. 99-8778.

#### Bybee *v.*Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joyce B. STEPHENS.

No. 80-K-2808.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Joyce B. Stephens, applying for writs of review. Parish of Ouachita. No. 44460.

Denied.
#### § 553.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures, and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
----

Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-353/05)

(2005/C 281/25)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Bernard Schima and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 2004.

----

(1)OJ L 176 of 15.07.2003, p. 37

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Advanced Photovoltaic Array Regulator ModuleCurrent trends in satellite design are focused on developing small, reliable, and inexpensive spacecraft. To that end, a modular power management and distribution system is proposed which will help transition the aerospace industry towards an assembly line approach to building spacecraft. The modular system is based on an innovative DC voltage boost converter called the Series Connected Boost Unit (SCBU). The SCBU uses any isolating DC-DC converter and adds a unique series connection. This simple modification provides the SCBU topology with many advantages over existing boost converters. Efficiencies of 94-98%, power densities above 1,000 W/kg, and inherent fault tolerance are just a few of the characteristics presented. Limitations of the SCBU technology are presented, and it is shown that the SCBU makes an ideal photovoltaic an-ay regulator. A set of photovoltaic power system requirements are presented that can be applied to almost any low Earth orbit satellite. Finally, a modular design based on the series connected boost unit is outlined and functional descriptions of the components are given.Document ID19960045838Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsButton, Robert M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1996Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-10391NASA-TM-107304IECEC-96424NAS 1.15:107304Meeting InformationMeeting: Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering ConferenceLocation: Washington, DCCountry: United StatesStart Date: August 11, 1996End Date: August 16, 1996Sponsors:American Inst. of Chemical Engineers,Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Inst. of Electrical Engineers,American Nuclear SocietyAccession Number96N32706Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 233-1A-1CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960045838.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024