alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William MUSGRAVE, Appellant, v. CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., Appellee.

No. 81-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1981.

Donald J. Vestal, Pembroke Pines, for appellant.

Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard and Anthony L. Pietrofesa, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Butler v. Metropolitan Dade County,*298 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Nemeth v. DeLauega*354 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL A. EUBANKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-97-110, CA-00-3645-2-18) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carl A. Eubanks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Eubanks , Nos. CR-97-110; CA00-3645-2-18 (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2005330EN.01000601.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-377/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/92/EC - Protection of workers - Risk from explosive atmospheres - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 330/11)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-377/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and V. Kreuschitz) v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Republic of Austria

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement fully Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement fully Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

1

---
exv10wxxy






Exhibit 10(x)




Description of Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Program



Stock Awards:





	•	 	Each non-employee director elected at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders
receives, under the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (LTICP), as of the date of
such meeting, an award of Company common stock having an award value of $70,000. A
non-employee director who joins the Board as of any other date receives, under the LTICP, as
of such other date, an award of Company common stock having an award value based on the
full-year award value of $70,000 prorated to reflect the number of months (rounded up to the
next whole month) remaining until the next annual meeting of stockholders; provided, however,
that if the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is not open on the day the director joins the
Board, the award is granted as of the next following day on which the NYSE is open.
	 
	•	 	The number of shares of Company common stock subject to an award is determined by dividing
the award value by the NYSE-only closing price of Company common stock on the date of grant
(rounded up to the nearest whole share).
	 
	•	 	The stock awards vest in full immediately upon grant.




Option Grants:





	•	 	Each non-employee director elected at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders
receives, under the LTICP, as of the date of such meeting, an option to purchase Company
common stock having a grant value of $60,000. A non-employee director who joins the Board as
of any other date receives, under the LTICP, as of such other date, an option to purchase
Company common stock based on the full-year grant value of $60,000 prorated to reflect the
number of months (rounded up to the next whole month) remaining until the next annual meeting
of stockholders; provided, however, that if the NYSE is not open on the day the director joins
the Board, the option is granted as of the next following day on which the NYSE is open.
	 
	•	 	Unless a higher conversion value is established by the Committee, the number of shares of
Company common stock subject to the option is generally determined by dividing the grant value
by 25% of the NYSE-only closing price of Company common stock on the date of grant (rounded up
to the nearest even 10 shares). The exercise price per share of the option is the NYSE-only
closing price of Company common stock on the date of grant.
	 
	•	 	The option vests and becomes exercisable in full on the first anniversary of the date of
grant. The option remains outstanding if the director leaves the Board for any reason other
than his or her death or for cause. If the director dies, the option vests and becomes
exercisable immediately by his or her beneficiary as determined in accordance with the LTICP.
If the
director is terminated for cause, the option terminates and is cancelled as of the date he or
she ceases to be a director.
### Rapid analysis of chromite and chrome ore

By: Joseph Isadore Dinnin

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1084B

#### 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.
HomeDS-4317 Application Status Inquiry

# 									DS-4317 Application Status Inquiry							

Parolees who have applied to the Department of State for family reunification using Form DS-4317 may use this form to send an inquiry to CARE to ask about the status of their case. You should only make an inquiry if you have already applied but have yet to receive any update from CARE on the status of your case. You should include the date you applied using Form DS-4317 as part of your inquiry. If this inquiry is being made on behalf of an applicant, please state your relationship to the applicant as part of this inquiry. CARE may need to obtain permission from the applicant to respond to third-party inquiries.

Note: Responses to inquiries made using this link will come from CARETravelData@state.gov.

اشخاص داری اقامت موقت (پارول) که برای اتحاد خانواده خویش با استفاده از فرم DS-4317 به وزارت امور خارجه درخواست داده اند ممکن است توسط این فورم برای ارسال معلومات ګرفتن از CARE برای پرسیدن در مورد وضعیت پرونده خود استفاده کنید. شما فقط باید یک بار این فورمه را ارسال کنید در صورت که شما از قبل برای اتحاد خانوداه خویش فورمه اتحاد خانواده را تکمیل کرده باشد اما تا هنوز کدام معلومات از طرف CARE به شما داده نشده. شما باید تاریخی که فورم اتحاد خانواده را تکمیل و ارسال کرده اید به عنوان بخشی از درخواست خود وارد کنید. اگر این درخواست به عوض متقاضی انجام می شود، لطفاً رابطه خود را با متقاضی به عنوان بخشی از این درخواست بیان کنید. CARE ممکن است برای پاسخ به سؤالات نمایندها از متقاضی اجازه بگیرد.

توجه: پاسخ به سؤالات با استفاده از این لینک از طریق ایمیل ادرس CARETravelData@state.gov خواهد آمد.

هغه موقعت خوندی حالت (پارول) لرونکی وکړي چې د DS-4317 فورمې په کارولو سره یې د کورنۍ د بیا یوځای کیدو لپاره د بهرنیو چارو وزارت ته غوښتنلیک ورکړی دی کولی شي دا فورمه CARE ته د پوښتنې لپاره واستوي ترڅو د دوی د قضیې د وضعیت په اړه پوښتنه وکړي. تاسو باید یوازې یو ځل پوښتنه وکړئ که تاسو دمخه د کورنۍ د بیا یوځای کیدو فورمه ډکه کړې وي مګر د خپلې قضیې د وضعیت په اړه مو تراوسه د CARE څخه کوم تازه معلومات ندي ترلاسه کړي. تاسو باید د خپلې پوښتنې د یوې برخې په توګه د DS-4317 فورمې د استولو نیټه شامل کړئ. که دا پوښتنه د غوښتونکي په استازیتوب ترسره کیږي، مهرباني وکړئ د دې پوښتنې د یوې برخې په توګه له غوښتونکي سره خپل اړیکه بیان کړئ. CARE ممکن د دریمې ډلې پوښتنو ته د ځواب ویلو لپاره د غوښتونکي څخه اجازې ترلاسه کولو ته اړتیا ولري.

یادونه: د دې لینک په کارولو سره د پوښتنو ځوابونه به د CAREtravelData@state.gov بریښنالیک ادرس څخه راشي.

## DS-4317 Application Status Inquiry

Privacy Notice

"*" indicates required fields

PrefixMissMr.Mrs.Ms.PrefixFirstLast

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
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.

§ 414.1510 Beneficiary qualifications for coverage of services. To qualify for Medicare coverage of home infusion therapy services, a beneficiary must meet each of the following requirements: ( a ) *Under the care of an applicable provider.* The beneficiary must be under the care of an applicable provider, as defined in section 1861(iii)(3)(A) of the Act as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant.
( b ) *Under a physician plan of care.* The beneficiary must be under a plan of care that meets the requirements for plans of care specified in § 414.1515.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO
           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 on Form 10-QSB of Telebyte, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kenneth S.
Schneider, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Breneisen, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

      1.    The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Kenneth S. Schneider
------------------------------
Name:  Kenneth S. Schneider
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 14, 2003


/s/ Michael Breneisen
------------------------------
Name:  Michael Breneisen
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  November 14, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

                                                                    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

The undersigned, Mason N. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of Merrimac
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending
     January 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

/s/ Mason N. Carter
------------------------------
Mason N. Carter
Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2005

                                       1
```
HomeGlobal Engagement CenterRemarks & Releases...Kremlin Disinformation Bulletin

# 									Kremlin Disinformation Bulletin							

Other Release

February 26, 2022

## Despite the Kremlin’s Claims, Ukraine Is Showing Strength and Determination

The Kremlin and its proxies continue to spread false narratives since invading further into Ukraine on February 24. Our information indicates Russia is creating a disinformation campaign by publicizing false reports about the widespread surrender of Ukraine’s troops. Our information also indicates that Russia plans to threaten killing the family members of Ukraine’s soldiers if they do not surrender. This is an attempt by Russia to discourage the Armed Forces of Ukraine from defending Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.​

Contrary to the Kremlin’s false claims, the people of Ukraine are demonstrating great strength, determination, and courage in response to Putin’s ruthless, unprovoked, and premeditated war.  We have seen Ukraine’s soldiers demonstrate commitment and bravery shooting down Russia’s aircraft, firing at tanks, and holding many of their positions while under heavy attack. ​

​The people of Ukraine without military training are also defending their democracy.  Lines of ordinary citizens have formed outside government buildings to collect weapons to fight Russia’s troops.

## Documenting Russia’s Fabrications

Image source: BBC

This recent disinformation campaign is the latest example of the Russian government’s attempts to demoralize Ukraine’s defense personnel.  Starting in late 2021, the Russian government stepped up a text message campaign and posted online material urging Ukraine’s military personnel to defy or kill their commanders, lay down their weapons, and refuse to die in the service of so-called corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.  This tactic is not new.  In 2014, after the Kremlin instigated a conflict in the Donbas in Ukraine, Russia started bombarding Ukrainian forces with text-based propaganda.

## Independent Media Fact-check Russia’s Claims That It Does Not Bomb Ukrainian Cities

Despite independent media coverage of Russia’s missile attacks on major cities in Ukraine, including video of attacks on Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and Mariupol, Russia’s state-owned TASS and RIA Novosti media outlets continue to cite the Russian Defense Ministry’s false claims that Russia does not conduct artillery or missile attacks on Ukraine’s cities and does not threaten civilians.

Tags

DisinformationGlobal Engagement CenterRussiaUkraine

Back to Top
#### Dean James BUFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. MM-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1979.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender; and Thomas S. Keith, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered this appeal from a judgment of guilt and an order placing appellant on probation pursuant to the dictates of *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After a review of the record, we have determined that condition (12) of the probation order requiring that appellant make restitution to the victim in an unspecified amount is improper and the same is hereby stricken. The conviction is affirmed but the cause is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amount of restitution to be made after providing appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard. *McClure v. State,*371 So.2d 196 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); *Fresneda*v. *State,*347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977).

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas J. DUFFEY et al., Appellants, v. FORTY-EIGHT FIFTEEN INC. et al., Appellees.

No. 73-287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 408.82 Conditions for group billing. CMS agrees to a group billing arrangement only if the following conditions are met: ( a ) Conditions the group payer must meet. The group payer submits a written request for group billing— ( 1 ) Showing that all or part of the payments are made from the payer's funds or from funds due the enrollees and in the payer's possession; and
( 2 ) Agreeing not to charge the enrollees for the service of paying the premiums or for the administrative costs such as recordkeeping and postage.
( b ) *Enrollees eligible for group payment.* ( 1 ) Group payment may be made only on behalf of individuals who are already enrolled and are being billed for direct remittance.
( 2 ) Group payment may not be made for enrollees whose premiums are being deducted from monthly benefits in accordance with Subpart C of this part or being paid by the State under a buy-in agreement.
( c ) *Protection of enrollee's rights.* The use of group billing must not jeopardize the enrollees' right— ( 1 ) To confidentiality of personal information;
( 2 ) To terminate enrollment;
( 3 ) To resume individual payment of premiums if he or she wishes; and
( 4 ) To receive notice of any action that affects the SMI benefits.
( d ) *Authorization by the enrollee.* ( 1 ) To ensure maximum feasible protection of the rights specified in paragraph (c) of this section, each enrollee must give written authorization as specified in § 408.84(a)(2).
( 2 ) A group payer that is not an entity of State or local government must submit all enrollee authorizations to CMS.
( 3 ) A group payer that is an entity of State or local government may retain the authorizations and certify to CMS that it has on file an authorization for each enrollee included in the group.
( 4 ) It is on the basis of the enrollee's authorization that CMS sends the group payer information about each enrollee, as necessary to carry out the group payment function.
( e ) *Size of group.* The number of enrollees must be at least 20, which is the minimum size sufficient to make group billing efficient. (Smaller groups may use the informal procedure described in § 408.80(b).)
#### GORY ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES and Hartford Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Gene THOMAS, Appellee.

No. YY-420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Russell A. Ortmayer of Marlow, Shofi, Ortmayer, Connell & Valerius, Miami, for appellants.

Louis F. Cohen of George P. Telas, P. A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order, the employer/carrier challenge the adequacy of the notice of injury, the award of temporary partial disability during the period the claimant Gene Thomas was employed (part-time), and the award of medical expenses. We affirm the order of the deputy commissioner on the first two points because there is competent, substantial evidence to support those determinations. On the issue of medical expenses, however, we reverse and remand for further proceedings for the reasons explained below.

At issue on the question of payment of medical expenses is the failure of the hospital and the attending physician to timely file medical reports. Section 440.13(1), Florida Statutes. The deputy commissioner’s order excuses the failure to timely file the reports based on the fact that the medical treatment was “reasonable and necessary” and “the circumstances involved.” It must be presumed from the context of the order that the phrase “the circumstances involved” refers to the fact that the employer/carrier refused to provide medical services. In *Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby,*394 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court held that the refusal to provide medical services is not good cause which excuses the failure to timely submit the required reports, nor is the fact that a claim is being contested sufficient to constitute good cause. *See also, St. Francis Hospital v. Feinberg,*192 So.2d 753 (Fla.1966). Furthermore, an excusal based solely on the finding that the medical treatment was “reasonable and necessary” is also insufficient. *Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, supra.*Accordingly, we must remand this cause for appropriate findings as to whether there was good cause to excuse the failure to comply with the statutory reporting requirements.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.