alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-S27023-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FRANK HART 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2191 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 15, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0119531-1992

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2018

Frank Hart appeals, pro se, from the order of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Philadelphia County, dismissing as untimely his petition filed pursuant to 

the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. That order was 

entered on May 15, 2017; his notice of appeal was docketed in this Court on 

June 19, 2017, thirty-five days later. By order dated September 5, 2017, this 

Court directed Hart to show cause why his appeal should not be quashed as 

untimely filed. Hart filed a timely response, in which he stated that he filed 

his notice of appeal on June 17, 2017, and any further delay is attributable to 

the mailroom at SCI-Graterford. 

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(a), a notice 

of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which 

the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). “Time limitations for taking appeals 

are strictly construed and cannot be extended as a matter of grace.”
J-S27023-18

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing 

Commonwealth v. Valentine, 928 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2007). Our 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal is predicated upon the timely filing of the notice 

of appeal; if this Court has no jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 715 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Pa. Super. 1998). Where, 

as here, a prisoner is acting pro se, an appeal is deemed filed for purposes of 

Rule 903(a) when the prisoner delivers the notice of appeal to prison 

authorities or places it in the prison mailbox. Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 

A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997). 

Here, Hart stated that he filed his appeal, i.e., delivered it to his prison’s 

mailroom, on June 17, 2017. Hart’s monthly prisoner account statement, 

attached as an exhibit to his response to the rule to show cause, shows that 

Hart’s prisoner account was debited for postage on June 19, 2017. Even if we 

credit Hart’s statement that he delivered his notice of appeal on June 17, 

2017, his appeal is still untimely. The order in question was filed on May 15, 

2017; thus, in order to be timely, Hart was required to deliver his notice of 

appeal to the prison mailroom by June 14, 2017.1 As he failed to do so, we 

must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Miller, supra. 

Appeal dismissed.

____________________________________________

1

In 2017, June 14 fell on a Tuesday, so there would have been no reason to 

extend the filing deadline.
J-S27023-18

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/18
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Entry Into Force of U.S.-UK Civil Air Transport Agreement

# 									Entry Into Force of U.S.-UK Civil Air Transport Agreement							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 26, 2021

On March 25, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland completed an exchange of diplomatic notes to bring the U.S.-UK Air Transport Agreement (“the Agreement”) into force. Both governments had been applying the Agreement, signed in November 2020, on the basis of comity and reciprocity since January 1, 2021. This Agreement also emphasizes the close ties between our two nations.

The Agreement serves as the basis of United States-United Kingdom air services relations. It includes all the essential elements of Open Skies, such as unrestricted capacity and frequency, open routes, code-sharing opportunities, a liberal charter regime, and market-determined pricing. The Agreement includes expanded “seventh-freedom” traffic rights for all-cargo services. It also includes the UK’s overseas territories and crown dependencies under the terms of this new Agreement.

For further information, please visit https://www.state.gov/civil-air-transport-agreements.

 

Tags

Air Transport AgreementsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDiplomacyEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyIrelandOffice of the SpokespersonTreaties and International AgreementsUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
Exhibit23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm

We have issued our report dated March29,  2006 accompanying the consolidated financial statements andschedule included in the Annual Report of Merrimac Industries, Inc. onForm 10-K for the year ended December  31,  2005. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said report in theRegistration Statements of Merrimac Industries, Inc. on Forms S-8(Registration No. 333-36795, dated September  30,  1997, asamended February  23,  2001, Registration No. 333-36199,dated September  23,  1997, as amended February23,  2001, Registration No. 33-68862, dated September15,  1993, as amended February  23,  2001, RegistrationNo. 333-09663, dated August  6,  1996, as amendedFebruary  23,  2001, Registration No. 333-63434, datedJune  20,  2001, Registration No. 333-63436, dated June20,  2001 and Registration No. 333-63438, dated June20,  2001).

|                                  |  |  |
|----------------------------------|--|--|
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP           |
| Edison, New JerseyMarch  29,2006 |
|                                  |

----
#### GEORGE C. TENNANT, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY AND STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued May 18, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellants, *James A. Hamill (Frank P. McCarthy,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *George C. Tennant, pro se.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on *certiorari*that fixed the assessment on the respondent’s land and residence for the tax year of 1936 at $15,000. The record is replete with contradictory evidence and such facts as are undisputed are susceptible of conflicting inferences. The record as a whole presents a close factual situation.

It is a settled rule that findings of fact by the Supreme Court on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of conflicting inference, are conclusive on appeal where such findings of fact are based upon competent evidence. *Jersey City*v. *State Water Policy Commission,*118 *N. J. L.*72, 77; *Dana College*v. *State Board, &c.,*117 *Id.*530; *West Shore Railroad Co.*v. *Board of Public Utility Commissioners,*112 *Id.*83; *Angelotti*v. *Montclair,*109 *Id.*360; *Kohn*v. *Tilt,*103 *Id.*110; *Collingswood*v. *Water Supply Commission,*85 *Id.*567; *Yellow Pine Co.*v. *State Board of Assessors,*72 *Id.*182; *Moran*v. *Jersey City, 58 Id.*653. The finding below is supported by competent proof and such finding is controlling here.

Eor this reason the judgment is affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellob, Chief Justice, Paekee, Bodine, Hehee, Peeskie, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, Raffebty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Charles WEAVER, Weaver Bonding Agency and Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., Sureties, Appellants, v. Donna M. MASANOTTI and Francisco Masanotti, Appellees.

No. 79-807.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1979.

Smith, Johnson, Carta. & Mockler and Steven Carta, Fort Myers, for appellants.

Richard B. Burke, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NES-BITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Section 61.18(3) Florida Statutes (1971).
#### Gilbert William HANNERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Appellees.

No. 45253.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 17, 1975.

Appeal dismissed sua sponte. 290 So.2d 583.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and OVERTON, J J., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents and would treat as conflict certiorari.
# C_2005205EN.01000301.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 30 June 2005

in Case C-537/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Oikeus in Katja Candolin and Others. v Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola and Others (1)

1

(Compulsory motor vehicle insurance - Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Rules on civil liability - Passenger's contribution to the loss or injury - Refusal or limitation of the right to compensation)

(2005/C 205/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-537/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein Oikeus (Finland), made by decision of 19 December 2003, received at the Court on 22 December 2003, in the proceedings between Katja Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen against Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, Jarno Ruokoranta, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it ruled:

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, preclude a national rule which allows the compensation borne by the compulsory motor vehicle insurance to be refused or limited in a disproportionate manner on the basis of the passenger's contribution to the injury or loss he has suffered. The fact that the passenger concerned is the owner of the vehicle the driver of which caused the accident is irrelevant.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004

1

---
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher
Chipman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/
Christopher  M. Chipman


Christopher  M.
Chipman


Chief
Financial Officer


March 12,
2009
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.406 Criteria for determining that a provider, practitioner, or supplier knew that services were excluded from coverage as custodial care or as not reasonable and necessary. ( a ) *Basic rule.* A provider, practitioner, or supplier that furnished services which constitute custodial care under § 411.15(g) or that are not reasonable and necessary under § 411.15(k) is considered to have known that the services were not covered if any one of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section is met.
( b ) *Notice from the QIO, intermediary or carrier.* The QIO, intermediary, or carrier had informed the provider, practitioner, or supplier that the services furnished were not covered, or that similar or reasonably comparable services were not covered.
( c ) *Notice from the utilization review committee or the beneficiary's attending phyician.* The utilization review group or committee for the provider or the beneficiary's attending physician had informed the provider that these services were not covered.
( d ) *Notice from the provider, practitioner, or supplier to the beneficiary.* Before the services were furnished, the provider, practitioner or supplier informed the beneficiary that— ( 1 ) The services were not covered; or
( 2 ) The beneficiary no longer needed covered services.
( e ) *Knowledge based on experience, actual notice, or constructive notice.* It is clear that the provider, practitioner, or supplier could have been expected to have known that the services were excluded from coverage on the basis of the following: ( 1 ) Its receipt of CMS notices, including manual issuances, bulletins, or other written guides or directives from intermediaries, carriers, or QIOs, including notification of QIO screening criteria specific to the condition of the beneficiary for whom the furnished services are at issue and of medical procedures subject to preadmission review by a QIO.
( 2 ) Federal Register publications containing notice of national coverage decisions or of other specifications regarding noncoverage of an item or service.
( 3 ) Its knowledge of what are considered acceptable standards of practice by the local medical community.
[54 FR 41734, Oct. 11, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 48425, Sept. 19, 1995]
- Division Home
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeMacroeconomic Affairs...Fiscal Transparency Report

# 									Fiscal Transparency Report							

Report

Division for International Finance and Development

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

Fiscal transparency informs citizens how government and tax revenues are spent and is a critical element of effective public financial management.  Transparency provides citizens a window into government budgets and those citizens, in turn, hold governments accountable.  It underpins market confidence and sustainability.  The Congressionally mandated Fiscal Transparency Report (FTR) is a tool to identify deficiencies and support needed changes.  The **Office of****Macroeconomic Affairs (OMA)** of State’s **Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB)** prepares the annual FTR in consultation with **State’s Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR)** and the **U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)**.

As directed by Congress, EB/OMA evaluates data on fiscal transparency collected at 141 of our posts around the world (in those places eligible to receive U.S. foreign assistance) against minimum requirements and publishes the results on the Department’s website annually.  To meet minimum requirements, governments must make key budget documents publicly available within a reasonable period.  They must be substantially complete and generally reliable.  Governments must also follow a transparent process for awarding government contracts for natural resource extraction.  For questions, please contact EB Fiscal Transparency at**EEB-Fiscaltransparen@state.gov**. 

-  Fiscal Transparency Reports-  June 27, 2023  														2023 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  September 9, 2022  														2022 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  June 25, 2021  														2021 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  June 15, 2020  														2020 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  August 15, 2019  														2019 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  September 19, 2018  														2018 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  September 12, 2017  														2017 Fiscal Transparency Report																											 
-  														Fiscal Transparency Report Archive (2009-2016)																											 
 

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEconomic AffairsEconomic StatecraftTrade and InvestmentTransparency

Back to Top
§ 424.126 Payment to the hospital. ( a ) *Conditions for payment.* Medicare pays the hospital if it— ( 1 ) Has in effect an election that— ( i ) Meets the requirements set forth in § 424.104; and
( ii ) Reflects the hospital's intent to claim for all covered services furnished during a calendar year.
( 2 ) Claims payment in accordance with §§ 424.32 and 413.74 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Submits evidence requested by CMS to establish that the services meet the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) *Amount of payment.* Payment is made (in accordance with § 413.74 of this chapter) on the basis of 100 percent of the hospital's customary charges, subject to the applicable deductible and coinsurance provisions set forth elsewhere in this chapter.
- Program Home
- Key Topics

HomeOffice of Foreign Missions...Foreign Missions Travel Controls Program

# 									Foreign Missions Travel Controls Program							

The Foreign Missions Act authorizes the Secretary of State to impose restrictions or conditions on the travel within the United States of certain members of foreign missions.  For example, certain members of foreign missions are required to notify the Office of Foreign Missions prior to traveling beyond a 25-mile radius of the White House.  Similarly, certain members of foreign missions are required to obtain OFM’s approval prior to traveling beyond a 25-mile radius of New York’s Columbus Circle.

In order to impose such restrictions or conditions, the Secretary or his/her designee must determine that the restriction is reasonably necessary to achieve one or more of the purposes set forth in 22 U.S.C. 4304(b), which include protecting the interests of the United States and facilitating relations between the United States and a sending state.

The imposition of such restrictions is uncommon.

Foreign mission members who may be subject to such restrictions include, but are not limited to, those accredited representatives of foreign missions representing:
        - Belarus
        - The People’s Republic of China ( details of visit/meeting engagement notification requirements here )
        - Cuba
        - Eritrea
        - Iran
        - The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)
        - Russia
        - Syria
        - Venezuela

Foreign missions with questions concerning this matter may contact OFMTravelServices@state.gov.

Back to Top
§ 403.768 Excluded services. In addition to items and services excluded in § 409.49 of this chapter, items and services are also excluded if they are provided by: ( a ) A HHA that is not a RNHCI.
( b ) A supplier who is not providing RNHCI designated items under arrangement with a RNHCI.
( c ) A nurse who is not providing RNHCI home nursing services under arrangement with a RNHCI.
[69 FR 66419, Nov. 15, 2004]
#### Gerald James BORDELON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C. Paul Phelps, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Larry E. Roberts, Superintendent, Louisiana Training Institute-East Baton Rouge; and Mack Delaphosse.

No. 80-C-2800.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1980.

In re Gerald James Bordelon, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge. Nineteenth Judicial District. No. 239-559, Div. L.

Granted.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3143

To prohibit the use of funds for the construction or operation of the National

Ignition Facility or any other facility that uses inertial confinement

fusion at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1996

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. STARK, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr.

COSTELLO, and Mr. EVANS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds for the construction or operation

of the National Ignition Facility or any other facility

that uses inertial confinement fusion at the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, California.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USING FUNDS FOR THE CON4 STRUCTION OR OPERATION OF NATIONAL IG5 NITION FACILITY.

6 During fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, no funds ap7 propriated or made available to the Secretary of Energy

8 may be used for the construction or operation of the Na-
2

•HR 3143 IH

1 tional Ignition Facility or any other facility that uses iner2 tial confinement fusion at the Lawrence Livermore Na3 tional Laboratory, California.

Æ
#### Joan THOMPKINS, Individually and as mother and next friend of Betty Jo Thompkins, a minor, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-597.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 1, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeDirect Line for American Business...Mobile Network Investment Opportunity in Panama

# 									Mobile Network Investment Opportunity in Panama							

Direct Line Event

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

November 9, 2022

		Register by 11/8 by clicking here		

**Topic:**Mobile Network Investment Opportunity in Panama

**Host:**Chargé d’Affaires Stewart Tuttle

**Date and Time:**  Wednesday,****November 9 at 11:00 a.m. EST/8:00 a.m. PST****

**Brief Description of Call:**Join Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez, U.S. Embassy Panama City’s Charge d’Affaires Stewart Tuttle, Panama’s Minister of Private Investment Jose Alejandro Rojas, and the National Authority for Public Services to explore a lucrative investment opportunity in Panama’s telecoms market.  Panama is looking for a mobile network provider to take over Digicel Panama’s assets which presents an opportunity to enter one of Latin America’s fastest growing and strategic markets with extensive linkages throughout the region. 

Please register by Tuesday, November 8.

##### Direct Line Registration Form

Tags
Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDirect LinePanamaBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future