alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006021EN.01000701.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2313 — Teka/Finatlantis/Holdivat)

(2006/C 21/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 April 2001, 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 website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32001M2313. 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 32001M2313. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 18 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Ford on May 12, 2011 FROM: Don Kopinski TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held at NVFEL on May 12 , 2011 b etween Ford and EPA staff. The following people attended : Ford : Cy nthia Williams, Ken McAlinden, Al ys sa Werthman, Satish Atluri, Bob Thomas EPA: By ron Bunker, Tony

Fernandez, Cle Jackson, Angela Cullen, Bob Peavy house, Don Kopinski The discussion focused on ADFEs , cross engine -vehicle credit averaging, and provisions for loose engine certification.
#### Lee WORKMAN, a/k/a Rose Workman, Appellant, v. Peter B. WORKMAN, Appellee.

No. WW-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 11, 1981.

*1172Carroll L. McCauley, Panama, for appellant.

Michael L. Stone, of Marvin A. Urquhart, Jr., P. A., Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment of dissolution awarding appellant lump sum, rather than periodic, alimony. We affirm, noting that the Circuit Court has reserved jurisdiction to modify the judgment. Therefore, appellant will be able to apply for further permanent alimony when, for example, the lump sum installment payments terminate, her health worsens, or the husband’s financial circumstances improve. *See Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980); *Hyatt v. Hyatt,*315 So.2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3164

To exempt defense nuclear facilities from the Metric System Conversion

Act of 1975.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 26, 1996

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To exempt defense nuclear facilities from the Metric System

Conversion Act of 1975.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

4 FROM METRIC SYSTEM CONVERSION ACT.

5 No former or current Defense nuclear production fa6 cility now owned and managed by the Department of En7 ergy shall be subject to the requirements of the Metric

8 System Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205a and fol9 lowing).

Æ
§ 124.708 Waiver of recovery—good cause for other use of facility. The Secretary may for good cause waive the recovery rights of the United States arising under § 124.703(b). In determining whether there is good cause under this section for releasing the applicant or other owner of the facility from its obligation, the Secretary will take into consideration the extent to which: ( a ) The facility will be devoted by the applicant or other owner to use for another public or nonprofit purpose whch will promote the purpose of the Act;
( b ) There are reasonable assurances that for the remainder of the 20-year period other public or nonprofit facilities not previously utilized for the purpose for which the facility was constructed will be so utilized and are substantially equivalent in nature and purpose.
( c ) The facility has been acquired from an agency of the United States (e.g., the Federal Housing Administration under its mortgage insurance commitment program) which has made a reasonable effort to dispose of it for operation as a public or nonprofit health care facility.
[51 FR 7939, Mar. 7, 1986, as amended at 57 FR 8272, Mar. 9, 1992]
#### Robert G. GRIMM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. W-86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

John W. Tanner, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Gerry B. Rose, Asst. Atty. en., for appellee.

*253SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal to review an order of forfeiture of appellant’s 1974 Fiat which was used in connection with the violation of our drug laws.

Appellant and three friends were parked on an approach road to the beach in Volu-sia County when a police officer became suspicious, and upon arriving- at the car noticed the odor of marijuana. The officer arrested all four occupants of the car, searched them and took them to the police station. One of the passengers of the car had 13 grams of marijuana in his sock and there was approximately one gram found in the ashtray of the car. The passenger with the “felony quantity” of marijuana received a sentence of one year unsupervised probation and a $100.00 fine. Appellant forfeited his $4,000.00 1974 Fiat, after a hearing in accordance with a new statute, § 893.12(2), F.S., which provides in material part as follows:

> Any . . . vehicle ... in which any violation of this chapter has taken or is taking place may be seized and forfeited to the state

Chapter 893 is Florida’s Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which enumerates all controlled substances, the penalties for possession and sale thereof, etc.

The statutory language is clear and the record sustains the lower court’s judgment that the public policy established by the legislature has been violated and the sanction designated by that body must perforce be invoked.

Affirmed.

BOYER, J., concurs.

McCORD, J., specially concurring.

McCORD, Judge

(specially concurring).

While the law in relation to the facts of this case is harsh, it is the law. Appellant argues that it was the legislative intent to only confiscate vehicles of those “trafficking” in illegal drugs, but the statute as above quoted in Judge Spector’s opinion is unambiguous.
# Nepal

80 items

        -    Report  		Nepal	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Nepal	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Nepal	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Nepal	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Nepal	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Nepal	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Nepal (03-722.1) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  July 22, 2003 
        -    DS Memorial  		Ramesh Manandhar	  January 1, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Nepal (13084) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  March 3, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Nepal (12856) – Agreement Relating to the Employment of Dependents of Official Government Employees	  May 13, 1997 

previous page1…678

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.

§ 414.1335 Data submission criteria for the quality performance category. ( a ) *Criteria.* A MIPS eligible clinician, group, virtual group, subgroup, or APM Entity must submit data on MIPS quality measures in one of the following manners, as applicable: ( 1 ) *For Medicare Part B claims measures, MIPS CQMs, eCQMs, or QCDR measures.* ( i ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, submits data on at least six measures, including at least one outcome measure. If an applicable outcome measure is not available, reports one other high priority measure. If fewer than six measures apply to the MIPS eligible clinician, group, virtual group, or APM Entity, reports on each measure that is applicable. ( A ) For eCQMs, the submission of data requires the utilization of CEHRT, as defined at § 414.1305.
( B ) [Reserved]
( ii ) A MIPS eligible clinician, group, virtual group, and APM Entity that report on a specialty or subspecialty measure set, as designated in the MIPS final list of quality measures established by CMS through rulemaking, must submit data on at least six measures within that set, including at least one outcome measure. If an applicable outcome measure is not available, report one other high priority measure. If the set contains fewer than six measures or if fewer than six measures within the set apply to the MIPS eligible clinician, group, virtual group, or APM Entity, report on each measure that is applicable. ( A ) For eCQMs, the submission of data requires the utilization of CEHRT, as defined at § 414.1305.
( B ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) *For CMS Web Interface measures.* ( i ) Report on all measures included in the CMS Web Interface. The group is required to report on at least one measure for which there is Medicare patient data.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) *For the CAHPS for MIPS survey measure.* ( i ) For the 12-month performance period, a group, virtual group, subgroup, or APM Entity that participates in the CAHPS for MIPS survey must use a survey vendor that is approved by CMS for the applicable performance period to transmit survey measures data to CMS.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) *For Medicare CQMs.* ( i ) A MIPS eligible clinician, group, and APM Entity reporting on the Medicare CQMs (reporting quality data on beneficiaries eligible for Medicare CQMs as defined at § 425.20) within the APP measure set and administering the CAHPS for MIPS Survey as required under the APP.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( b ) [Reserved]
[81 FR 77537, Nov. 4, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 53953, Nov. 16, 2017; 83 FR 60079, Nov. 23, 2018; 84 FR 63195, Nov. 15, 2019; 88 FR 79534, Nov. 16, 2023]
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-12-00153- CV In re John W. Cook; Marc C ook; Marc Bumber a; Sun Deve lopme nt, L.L.P.; SD GP , L.L.C.; P etr oleum Wholesale, L.P.; P WI GP , L.L.C.; and J.C. Capital, LP

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: Apr il 10, 2012
#### Isaac WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Jack SANDSTROM, Director of Corrections and Rehabilitations, Dade County Jail, Respondent.

No. 46424.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 26, 1974.

Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner seeks reinstatement of his super-sedeas bond pending review by this Court of his conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery, which was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, Third District, and reported at 294 So.2d 407. We issued the writ and Respondent filed a return. The only apparently meritorious ground for relief alleged by petitioner was the trial court’s failure to state the reasons for revocation of bond, subsequently corrected by order of the trial court stating as grounds therefor Petitioner’s arrest for possession and sale of drugs and Petitioner’s disregard for the law and the well-being of the community. Finding no ground for relief, we discharged the writ.

*2By petition for rehearing, Petitioner has shown that the pending state criminal charges on which the trial court relied as the basis for revocation of bond have since been dismissed. From our review of the record before us, it appears that at the time the trial court revoked Petitioner’s bond the charges pending against him had not yet been dismissed. Since we now find the basis for revocation of bond as stated by the trial court no longer exists, rehearing is granted, the writ is granted and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the relief sought by Petitioner.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents.
#### Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Attorney General. In re Charles Lee BUFFORD v. STATE of Alabama.

79-484.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 2, 1980.

BEATTY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
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.

§ 414.1395 Public reporting. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) CMS posts on Physician Compare, in an easily understandable format, the following: ( i ) Information regarding the performance of MIPS eligible clinicians, including, but not limited to, final scores and performance category scores for each MIPS eligible clinician; and
( ii ) The names of eligible clinicians in Advanced APMs and, to the extent feasible, the names and performance of such Advanced APMs.
( 2 ) CMS periodically posts on Physician Compare aggregate information on the MIPS, including the range of final scores for all MIPS eligible clinicians and the range of the performance of all MIPS eligible clinicians with respect to each performance category.
( 3 ) The information made available under this section will indicate, where appropriate, that publicized information may not be representative of an eligible clinician's entire patient population, the variety of services furnished by the eligible clinician, or the health conditions of individuals treated.
( b ) *Maintain existing public reporting standards.* With the exception of data that must be mandatorily reported on Physician Compare, for each program year, CMS relies on established public reporting standards to guide the information available for inclusion on Physician Compare. The public reporting standards require data included on Physician Compare to be statistically valid, reliable, and accurate; comparable across collection types; and meet the reliability threshold. And, to be included on the public facing profile pages, the data must also resonate with website users, as determined by CMS.
( c ) *New measures and activities.* ( 1 ) CMS does not publicly report any data on new quality or cost measure for the first 2 years in which it is in the program, after which CMS evaluates the measure to determine whether it is suitable for public reporting under paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) CMS does not publicly report any MVP data on new improvement activity or Promoting Interoperability measure, objective, or activity included in an MVP for the first year in which it is included in the MVP.
( d ) *30-day preview period.* For each program year, CMS provides a 30-day preview period for any clinician or group with Quality Payment Program data before the data are publicly reported on Physician Compare.
[82 FR 53959, Nov. 16, 2017, as amended at 83 FR 60087, Nov. 23, 2018; 84 FR 63198, Nov. 15, 2019; 86 FR 65677, Nov. 19, 2021]
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 7, 2009, National Center for Natural Products Research—NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Lab Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than November 9, 2009. Dated: August 28, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-21523 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
§ 423.1068 Administrative Law Judge's decision. ( a ) *Timing, basis and content.* As soon as practical after the close of the hearing, the ALJ issues a written decision in the case. The decision is based on the evidence of record and contains separate numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) *Notice and effect.* A copy of the decision is mailed to the parties and is binding on them unless— ( 1 ) A party requests review by the Departmental Appeals Board within the time period specified in 423.1076, and the Board reviews the case;
( 2 ) The Departmental Appeals Board denies the request for review and the party seeks judicial review by filing an action in a United States District Court or, in the case of a civil money penalty, in a United States Court of Appeals;
( 3 ) The decision is revised by an ALJ or the Department Appeals Board; or
( 4 ) The decision is a recommended decision directed to the Board.
# Saudi Arabia

364 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  March 20, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 12, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 12, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy for Sudan Perriello Travels to Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  March 8, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 5, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 5, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  February 27, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: American International School-Riyadh: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: American International School of Jeddah: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: ISG Dhahran Campus Schools: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 20, 2024Washington, DC 

previous page12345…37next page

Back to Top
§ 124.506 Allocation of services; plan requirement. ( a ) ( 1 ) A facility shall provide its uncompensated services in accordance with a plan that sets out the method by which the facility will distribute its uncompensated services among persons unable to pay. The plan must: ( i ) State the type of services that will be made available;
( ii ) Specify the method, if any, for distributing those services in different periods of the year;
( iii ) State whether Category B or, in the case of nursing homes only, Category C persons will be provided uncompensated services, and if so, whether the services will be available without charge or at a reduced charge;
( iv ) If services will be made available to Category B persons at a reduced charge, specify the method used for reducing charges, and provide that the method is applicable to all persons in Category B;
( v ) With respect to nursing homes only, if services will be made available to Category C persons at a reduced charge, specify the method used for reducing charges, provided that such method may not result in greater reductions than those afforded to Category B persons, and provide that this method is applicable to all persons in Category C; and
( vi ) Provide that the facility provides uncompensated services to all persons eligible under the plan who request uncompensated services.
( 2 ) A facility must adopt an allocation plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) by publishing the plan in a newspaper of general circulation in its area. The plan may take effect no earlier than 60 days following the date of publication.
( b ) ( 1 ) If in any fiscal year a facility fails to adopt and publish a plan in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, it shall provide uncompensated services in accordance with the last plan it published in a newspaper of general circulation in its area.
( 2 ) If no plan was previously published in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the facility must provide uncompensated services without charge to all applicants in Category A and Category B, and, with respect to nursing homes, Category C, who request service in the facility. This requirement applies until the facility ceases to provide uncompensated services under § 124.508 or until an allocation plan published in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section becomes effective.
( c ) A facility may revise its allocation plan during the fiscal year by publishing the revised plan in a newspaper of general circulation in the area it serves. A revised plan may take effect no earlier than 60 days following the date of publication.
[52 FR 46031, Dec. 3, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 16756, Mar. 31, 1995]
#### Greg Jerome SPULLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-147.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.