alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01532-CR

FELIX HERNANDEZ CISNEROS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-60536-U

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s June 14, 2013 motion to extend time to file his brief. 

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by JULY 29, 2013.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
§ 136a.33 Grace period. ( a ) Upon the effective date referred to in § 36a.32(a), individuals who would lose their eligibility under the new eligilibity regulations published on September 16, 1987, and who have made use of an Indian Health Service of Indian Health Service funded service within three years prior to September 16, 1987 (date of publication of the new eligibility regulations) shall retain their eligibility for a six month grace period ending September 16, 1988. During this grace period such individual's eligibility will continue to be determined under the former regulations except that the new residency requirements established by subparts A and B must be met for the individual to be eligible.
( b ) All individuals who receive services during the grace period based on paragraph (a) of this section and whose eligibility will terminate on September 16, 1988, shall be notified in writing that after September 16, 1988 they will no longer the eligible for services as Indian Health Service beneficiaries. Such written notice should include an explanation of their appeal rights as provided in § 36a.14 of the part. These patients shall be offered assistance in locating other health care providers and medical assistance programs.
[52 FR 35050, Sept. 16, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 53914, Sept. 6, 2000]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


     1.  The Park Avenue Bank, Valdosta, Georgia/(1)/
            .  PAB Holdings, Inc./(2)/
            .  PAB Investments, Inc./(1)/

     2.  Farmers & Merchants Bank, Adel, Georgia/(1)/

     3.  First Community Bank of Southwest Georgia, Bainbridge, Georgia/(1)/
            .  Empire Financial Services, Inc./(1)/
            .  FCB Holdings, Inc./(2)/
            .  FCB Investments, Inc./(1)/

     4.  Eagle Bank and Trust, Statesboro, Georgia/(1)/

     5.  Baxley Federal Savings Bank, Baxley, Georgia/(1)/

     6.  PAB Financial Services, LLC, Valdosta, Georgia/(1)/


Note 1 - State of incorporation or organization is Georgia.
Note 2 - State of incorporation or organization is Delaware.
§ 405.942 Time frame for filing a request for a redetermination. ( a ) *Time frame for filing a request.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any request for redetermination must be filed within 120 calendar days from the date a party receives the notice of the initial determination. ( 1 ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the initial determination will be presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the notice of initial determination, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( 2 ) The request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the contractor.
( b ) *Extending the time frame for filing a request. General rule.* If the 120 calendar day period in which to file a request for a redetermination has expired and a party shows good cause, the contractor may extend the time frame for filing a request for redetermination. ( 1 ) *How to request an extension.* A party may file a request for an extension of time for filing a request for a redetermination with the contractor. The party should include any evidence supporting the request for extension. The request for redetermination extension must— ( i ) Be in writing;
( ii ) State why the request for redetermination was not filed within the required time frame; and
( iii ) Meet the requirements of § 405.944.
( 2 ) *How the contractor determines if good cause exists.* In determining if a party has good cause for missing a deadline to request a redetermination, the contractor considers— ( i ) The circumstances that kept the party from making the request on time;
( ii ) If the contractor's action(s) misled the party; and
( iii ) If the party had or has any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations, including any lack of facility with the English language, that prevented the party from filing a timely request or from understanding or knowing about the need to file a timely request.
( 3 ) *Examples of good cause.* Examples of circumstances when good cause may be found to exist include, but are not limited to, the following situations: ( i ) The party was prevented by serious illness from contacting the contractor in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person; or
( ii ) The party had a death or serious illness in his or her immediate family; or
( iii ) Important records of the party were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
( iv ) The contractor gave the party incorrect or incomplete information about when and how to request a redetermination; or
( v ) The party did not receive notice of the determination or decision; or
( vi ) The party sent the request to a Government agency in good faith within the time limit, and the request did not reach the appropriate contractor until after the time period to file a request expired.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65333, Dec. 9, 2009]
# Pakistan

295 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 4, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 4, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 3, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 3, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 25, 2021	  February 25, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi	  January 29, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Seeking Justice for the Kidnapping and Murder of Daniel Pearl	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 28, 2021 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Promoting and Protecting: Women’s Rights in Marriage; Free and Fair Elections; Rule of Law; and Marginalized Communities	  January 25, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Pakistan	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Pakistan	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Pakistan	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Pakistan	  June 10, 2020 

previous page1…2223242526…30next page

Back to Top
# C_2006049EN.01000302.xml

| 28.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3973 — CMA CGM/Delmas)

(2006/C 49/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 December 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 32005M3973. 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 32005M3973. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005296EN.01002203.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2005 — Bunker & BKR v OHIM

(Case T-423/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘B.K.R.’ - Earlier national word mark BK RODS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 296/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Bunker & BKR, SL (Almansa, Spain) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent,)

Defendant(s):

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marine Stock Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Application for

annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Bunker & BKR, SL and Marine Stock Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| 3. | Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

1

---
40999.

#### HILL v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Leon F. Hill was convicted of larceny of an automobile and thereafter his motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds and six special grounds, was overruled and he now assigns error on such judgment adverse to him. *Held:*

1. The first special ground, numbered 4, complains of the overruling of an objection to evidence, but fails to set forth or refer by page number to the evidence objected to, *Valdosta Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc. v. Montgomery,*102 Ga. App. 440 (2) (116 SE2d 675), *Dandridge v. State,*109 Ga. App. 33 (1) (134 SE2d 814), fails to set forth the name of the witness, and that it was offered by the opposing party, *Price v. State,*108 Ga. App. 581 (1a) (133 SE2d 916). Such ground is incomplete and presents nothing for decision.

*632Decided November 12, 1964.

*Atkins ■& Atkins, Ben S. Atkins, Dorothy D. Atkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Boyd, Solicitor General, J. Robert Sparks, J. Walter LeCraw,*contra.

2. Special grounds numbered 5, 6, 8 and 9 are controlled adversely to the movant by the ruling in Headnote 1.

3. It is not error to refuse to direct a verdict in a criminal case. *Lee v. State,*108 Ga. App. 97 (132 SE2d 107); *Hunter v. State,*105 Ga. App. 564 (125 SE2d 85). Accordingly the trial court did not err in overruling special ground numbered 7 which assigned error on the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

4. The State presented evidence by a co-conspirator of the defendant’s guilt, and this evidence was corroborated by an eyewitness to the crime as well as the statement of the defendant on the trial of the case admitting his presence at the scene. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.304 Eligibility for prospectively determined payment rates. ( a ) *General rule.* An SNF is eligible to receive a prospectively determined payment rate for a cost reporting period if it had fewer than 1,500 Medicare covered inpatient days as reported on a Medicare cost report in its immediately preceding cost reporting period. This criterion applies even if the SNF received a prospectively determined payment rate during the preceding cost reporting period.
( b ) *Less than a full cost reporting period.* If the cost reporting period that precedes an SNF's request for prospectively determined payment is not a full cost reporting period, the SNF is eligible to receive prospectively determined payment rates only if the average daily Medicare census for the period (Medicare inpatient days divided by the total number of days in the cost reporting period) is not greater than 4.1.
( c ) *Newly-participating SNFs.* An SNF is eligible to receive prospectively determined payment rates for its first cost reporting period for which it is approved to participate in Medicare.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.380 When CMS issues a formal advisory opinion. ( a ) CMS considers an advisory opinion to be issued once it has received payment and once the opinion has been dated, numbered, and signed by an authorized CMS official.
( b ) An advisory opinion contains a description of the material facts known to CMS that relate to the arrangement that is the subject of the advisory opinion, and states CMS's opinion about the subject matter of the request based on those facts. If necessary, CMS includes in the advisory opinion material facts that could be considered confidential information or trade secrets within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1095.
( c ) ( 1 ) Except as set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, CMS issues an advisory opinion in accordance with the provisions of this part within 60 working days after the date on which it formally accepts the advisory opinion request. ( i ) In the case of a request for a determination that an arrangement or course of conduct is indistinguishable in all material aspects from another arrangement or course of conduct that was the subject of a prior opinion, CMS issues an advisory opinion within 30 working days after the date on which it formally accepts the advisory opinion request.
( ii ) In the case of a request that CMS determines, in its discretion, involves complex legal issues or highly complicated fact patterns, CMS issues an advisory opinion within a reasonable time period after the date on which it formally accepts the advisory opinion request.
( iii ) If the last day of the 60-working day or 30-working day time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, CMS may issue the advisory opinion at the close of business on the first business day following the weekend or holiday.
( 2 ) The applicable time period for issuing an advisory opinion is suspended from the time CMS; ( i ) Notifies the requestor that the costs have reached or are likely to exceed the triggering amount as described in § 411.375(c)(2) until CMS receives written notice from the requestor to continue processing the request;
( ii ) Requests additional information from the requestor until CMS receives the additional information;
( iii ) Notifies the requestor of the full amount due until CMS receives payment of this amount; and
( iv ) Notifies the requestor of the need for expert advice until CMS receives the expert advice.
( d ) After CMS has notified the requestor of the full amount owed and has received full payment of that amount, CMS issues the advisory opinion and promptly mails it to the requestor by regular first class U.S. mail.
[69 FR 57229, Sept. 24, 2004, as amended at 84 FR 63192, Nov. 15, 2019]
§ 3.518 Exchange of witness lists, witness statements, and exhibits. ( a ) The parties must exchange witness lists, copies of prior written statements of proposed witnesses, and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony in accordance with § 3.538, not more than 60, and not less than 15, days before the scheduled hearing.
( b ) ( 1 ) If, at any time, a party objects to the proposed admission of evidence not exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ must determine whether the failure to comply with paragraph (a) of this section should result in the exclusion of that evidence.
( 2 ) Unless the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances justified the failure timely to exchange the information listed under paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ must exclude from the party's case-in-chief— ( i ) The testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list; and
( ii ) Any exhibit not provided to the opposing party as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 3 ) If the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances existed, the ALJ must then determine whether the admission of that evidence would cause substantial prejudice to the objecting party. ( i ) If the ALJ finds that there is no substantial prejudice, the evidence may be admitted.
( ii ) If the ALJ finds that there is substantial prejudice, the ALJ may exclude the evidence, or, if he or she does not exclude the evidence, must postpone the hearing for such time as is necessary for the objecting party to prepare and respond to the evidence, unless the objecting party waives postponement.
( c ) Unless the other party objects within a reasonable period of time before the hearing, documents exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section will be deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.51 Beneficiary's responsibility with respect to no-fault insurance. ( a ) The beneficiary is responsible for taking whatever action is necessary to obtain any payment that can reasonably be expected under no-fault insurance.
( b ) Except as specified in § 411.53, Medicare does not pay until the beneficiary has exhausted his or her remedies under no-fault insurance.
( c ) Except as specified in § 411.53, Medicare does not pay for services that would have been covered by the no-fault insurance if the beneficiary had filed a proper claim.
( d ) However, if a claim is denied for reasons other than not being a proper claim, Medicare pays for the services if they are covered under Medicare.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3129

To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow loans under the Thrift

Savings Plan to be made for expenses associated with the adoption

of a child.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 1996

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

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow loans under

the Thrift Savings Plan to be made for expenses associated with the adoption of a child.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADOPTION

4 OF A CHILD.

5 Paragraph (2) of section 8433(g) of title 5, United

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of

7 subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of

8 subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and by adding at

9 the end the following:
2

•HR 3129 IH

1 ‘‘(E) expenses associated with the adoption of a

2 child.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of JMAR Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald A.
Walrod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Dennis E. Valentine, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                By: /s/ Ronald A. Walrod
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Ronald A. Walrod
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                                By: /s/ Dennis E. Valentine
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Dennis E. Valentine
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

May 17, 2004
Order filed, November 30, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00312-CV

____________

BIJAN MERRIKH, Appellant

V.

JOSEPH COSTA AND JOHNA COSTA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-28389

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 24, 2022. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On October 4, 2022, this court reinstated this case and extended the time 

to file the reporter’s record until November 3, 2022. To date, the record has not 

been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the 

time prescribed in the previous request, we issue the following order.

We order Monica Grassmuck, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
HomeTurkey

# Turkey

396 items

        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of Shelter, Health, and Education Programs for Iraqi and Syrian Refugees in Jordan [PDF]	  July 1, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (13-708) – Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation	  July 8, 2013 
        -    		Mustafa  Akarsu	  February 1, 2013 
        -    DS Memorial  		Mustafa Akarsu	  February 1, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (12-918.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 18, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (11-218) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Scientific and Technological Cooperation in the Earth Sciences	  February 18, 2011 
        -    		Mehmet Onder  Sacmalioglu	  July 9, 2008 
        -    		Erdal  Oztas	  July 9, 2008 
        -    		Nedim  Calik	  July 9, 2008 
        -    DS Memorial  		Mehmet Onder Sacmalioglu	  July 9, 2008 

previous page1…3637383940next page

Back to Top