alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 402.7 Notice of proposed determination. ( a ) If CMS or OIG proposes a penalty and, as applicable, an assessment, or proposes to exclude a respondent from participation in Medicare in accordance with this part, it sends the respondent written notice of its intent by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice includes the following information: ( 1 ) Reference to the statutory basis or bases for the penalty, assessment, exclusion, or any combination, as applicable.
( 2 ) ( i ) A description of the claims, requests for payment, or incidents with respect to which the penalty, assessment, and exclusion are proposed; or
( ii ) If CMS or OIG is relying upon statistical sampling to project the number and types of claims or requests for payment and the dollar amount, a description of the claims and requests for payment comprising the sample and a brief description of the statistical sampling technique CMS or OIG used.
( 3 ) The reason why the claims, requests for payment, or incidents are subject to a penalty and assessment.
( 4 ) The amount of the proposed penalty and of any proposed assessment.
( 5 ) Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that CMS or OIG considered when it determined the amount of the proposed penalty and any applicable assessment.
( 6 ) Information concerning response to the notice, including— ( i ) A specific statement of the respondent's right to a hearing; and
( ii ) A statement that failure to request a hearing within 60 days renders the proposed determination final and permits the imposition of the proposed penalty and any assessment.
( iii ) A statement that the debt may be collected through an administrative offset.
( 7 ) In the case of a respondent that has an agreement under section 1866 of the Act, notice that imposition of an exclusion may result in termination of the provider's agreement in accordance with section 1866(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
HomeFunding Opportunities...Funding Opportunity Announcements

# 						Funding Opportunity Announcements					

58 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAfghanistanBangladeshBurkina FasoCameroonCentral African RepublicChadColombiaEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEthiopiaIndiaIndonesiaIraqJordanKenyaLebanonMalaysiaMaliMauritaniaNepalNigerNigeriaPakistanPeruRwandaSenegalSouth AfricaSouth SudanSudanSyriaTanzaniaThailandTurkeyUgandaUkraineVenezuelaZambia

Select a Release TypeFunding Opportunity Announcement

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Vulnerable PRM Populations of Concern in South America and the Caribbean	  February 9, 2023 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya	  February 8, 2023 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefitting Refugees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa	  February 8, 2023 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in South Sudan	  January 31, 2023 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Request for Concept Notes for NGO Programs Benefiting Displaced Persons and Refugees in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkiye	  November 18, 2022 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Request for Concept Notes on Capacity Development and Strengthening of Domestic Refugee Resettlement	  June 8, 2022 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Request for Concept Notes for Operational Partners on the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Pilot Program 	  May 4, 2022 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for Resettlement Support Center (RSC) Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and RSC Turkey and Middle East (TuME)	  May 2, 2022 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		​FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for Reception and Placement Program	  April 19, 2022 
          -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Vulnerable Populations in Mali, Mauritania, and Niger	  April 5, 2022 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
#### FLORENCE R. SHEPHERD, PROSECUTOR, v. LOLETA M. BELZ, DEFENDANT.

Argued August 14, 1939

Decided August 21, 1939.

Before Justice Porter, sitting alone pursuant to the statute.

For the prosecutor, *Augustus S. Goetz.*

For the defendant, *George R. Greis.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

Counsel by stipulation removed to this court for review a judgment of possession entered by a justice of the peace in Gape May County in favor of the prosecutor and against the defendant in a landlord and tenant proceeding there pending.

It seems from the stipulation that the facts are that a lease was entered into between the parties for premises in *101Ocean City and that under the terms of the lease there was a default in the payment of rent by the tenant, prosecutor herein, to the landlord, defendant herein. That the dispossess proceedings were instituted by the justice of the peace of Cape May county who, upon hearing the matter, entered judgment fox possession in favor of the landlord against the tenant.

The question raised is whether or not the justice of the peace had jurisdiction, it being contended by the prosecutor that he had none and that the provisions of *B. S. 2*:58-17 are controlling. That section reads in part as follows: “tenants may be removed from such premises by any District Court in the county where such premises are situated, or, if such premises do not lie within a county in which there is a District Court, then by any justice of the peace of the county where such premises are situate in the manner hereinafter prescribed in the following cases; provided, that this section shall not be construed so as to give the justices of the peace jurisdiction where district courts are established by law

There being a District Court established in the county of Cape May, under the provisions of the statute quoted, jurisdiction is in that court and not in the justices-of-the-peace courts.

It is argued that *B. 8.*2:8-46 to 2:8-53 vest jurisdiction in the justices of the peace which they had prior to the establishment of the District Court in that county. I think there is no merit to that argument because the language of *B.*8. 2:58-17, *supra,*is applicable irrespective of when the District Court was established — either by act of the legislature or by act of the board of freeholders in pursuance of the legislative act — because the question is not when jurisdiction was in the respective courts, but whether it is at this time when the cause of action in the instant case arose. It seems clear that the legislative intendment was that where there is a District Court duly constituted the justices-of-the-peace courts are divested of jurisdiction in cases of this kind. *Taylor*v. *Small Cause Court for Camden County,*123 *N. J. L.*40.

Judgment below is therefore reversed.
#### Charles S. MORGAN, Jr., and Boca Grande Boats, Inc., Petitioners, v. Carrie Frances SURFUS, by and through her next friend and natural mother Mary A. Surfus, Respondent.

No. 74-561.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 10, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed.
§ 137.20 What is required during the planning phase? The planning phase must be conducted to the satisfaction of the Indian Tribe and must include: ( a ) legal and budgetary research; and
( b ) internal Tribal government planning and organizational preparation relating to the administration of health programs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Aug-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Aug-31-2000
<CASH>                                         541,855
<SECURITIES>                                   174,074
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    141,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               946,998
<PP&E>                                          22,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                 204,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,147,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          400,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,046
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,811,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,147,500
<SALES>                                        464,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          130,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  517,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,532
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
695 A.2d 781

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Lyndon Jay PARKER, Respondent.

No. 291 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1997, there having been filed with this Court by Lyndon Jay Parker his verified Statement of Resignation dated May 8, 1997, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Lyndon Jay Parker be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3264

To waive the Medicaid enrollment composition rule for D.C. Chartered Health

Plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 17, 1996

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To waive the Medicaid enrollment composition rule for D.C.

Chartered Health Plan.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF 75/25 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT

4 RULE FOR D.C. CHARTERED HEALTH PLAN.

5 The requirement of section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the

6 Social Security Act is deemed to be (and to have been)

7 waived with respect to the D.C. Chartered Health Plan,

8 Inc. of the District of Columbia for contract periods begin-
2

•HR 3264 IH

1 ning on or after October 1, 1991, and ending before Octo2 ber 1, 1999.

Æ
# C_2006055EN.01005902.xml

| 7.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/59

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3589 — Körber/Winkler + Dünnebier)

(2006/C 55/26)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 November 2004, 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 32004M3589. 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 32004M3589. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2006086EN.01004001.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

(Case T-48/06)

(2006/C 86/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Astex Therareutics Limited (Cambridge, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor]

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protec Health International Limited (Cirencester, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part;

| — | order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Astex Technology’ for goods in class 5 (pharmaceuticals)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Protec Health International Limited.

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Astex’ for goods and services in classes 5 (insecticides for killing dust mites) and 24 (textiles etc.)

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Refuses registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismisses the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2006048EN.01000802.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC - Award criteria - The economically most advantageous tender - Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice - Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice - Decision to apply weighting - Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)

(2006/C 48/16)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-331/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by Decision of 6 April 2004, received at the Court on 29 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors must be interpreted as meaning that Community law does not preclude a jury from attaching specific weight to the subheadings of an award criterion which are defined in advance, by dividing among those headings the points awarded for that criterion by the contracting authority when the contract documents or the contract notice were prepared, provided that that decision:

| — | does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice; |
| --- | --- |

—

does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice;

| — | does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation; |
| --- | --- |

—

does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation;

| — | was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

—

was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

1

---
# C_2005243EN.01001001.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium) by order of that court of 13 July 2005 in Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres and Ordre des barreaux flamands and Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-305/05)

(2005/C 243/15)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres and Ordre des barreaux flamands and Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres on the following question:

Does Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (1) infringe the right to a fair trail such as is guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, as a consequence, Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, in so far as the new Article 2a(5) which it inserts into Directive 91/308/EEC requires the inclusion of members of the independent legal profession, without excluding the profession of avocat, in the scope of application of this same directive, which, in substance, has the aim of imposing an obligation on persons or establishments covered by it to inform the authorities responsible for the fight against money laundering of any fact which might be an indication of such laundering (Article 6 of Directive 91/308/EEC, replaced by Article 1(5) of Directive 2001/97/EC)?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76

1

---
HomeSeychelles

# Seychelles

52 items

        -    TIAS  		Seychelles (09-909) – Defense Status of Forces Agreement	  September 9, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Seychelles (03-717) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  July 17, 2003 

previous page1…456

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1004 Scope and applicability. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth procedures for reviewing initial determinations that CMS makes with respect to the matters specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Initial determinations by CMS.* CMS makes initial determinations with respect to the imposition of civil money penalties in accordance with part 422, subpart O.
#### The Board of Commissioners of Greene County *v.*Harshman.

*Error proceedings*— Supreme *court*— -Final *order by court of ap*peals— *Contempt proceedings.*

(No. 16490

Decided June 22, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Greene county.

*Mr. Harry D.*Smith, prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. M. J. Hartley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Marcus Shoup,*for defendant *in error.*

The court find that no final order has been made or entered by the court of appeals from which the plaintiff in error can prosecute this proceeding in error. The cause was heard in the court of appeals upon an information or complaint in con*530tempt against the board of county commissioners for failure and refusal to comply with a former decree of said court of appeals which was rendered March 23, 1918, as a result whereof the court of appeals modified and reaffirmed such former order and decree and required that it be complied with by the date therein designated. If this proceeding in error is from the order and decree of March 23, 1918, it comes too late; if it is from the order and decree of December *17, 1919,*it is premature, for as yet there has been no judgment of contempt by that court for refusal of the commissioners to obey and execute the. order and decree previously made and entered by the court of appeals. It is therefore ordered that the petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur.