alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 423.2048 The effect of an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision. ( a ) The decision of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator on a request for hearing is binding unless— ( 1 ) An enrollee requests a review of the decision by the Council within the stated time period or the Council reviews the decision issued by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator under the procedures set forth in § 423.2110, and the Council issues a final decision or remand order;
( 2 ) The decision is reopened and revised by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator or the Council under the procedures explained in § 423.1980;
( 3 ) The expedited access to judicial review process at § 423.1990 is used;
( 4 ) The ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision is a recommended decision directed to the Council and the Council issues a decision; or
( 5 ) In a case remanded by a Federal district court, the Council assumes jurisdiction under the procedures in § 423.2138 and the Council issues a decision.
( b ) The decision of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator on a request for review of an IRE dismissal is binding on the enrollee unless the decision is reopened and revised by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator under the procedures explained in § 423.1980.
[82 FR 5135, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### Carl BROOKS d/b/a Central Bonding Co. v. Ray POPE, Chief of Police of the City of Jackson, Miss.

No. 52667.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 15, 1981.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; William F. Coleman, Judge.

*936Harry L. Kelley, Jackson, for appellant.

Cynthia Hewes, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 569.310 Property; property interest.

The terms *property* and *property interest* include money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership, or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future, or contingent.
# C_2006048EN.01003403.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/34

---

Action brought on 14 November 2005 — Eerola v Commission

(Case T-410/05)

(2006/C 48/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Iiro Eerola (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, of Finnish nationality, was appointed an official of the Commission on 1 October 2004. The Commission refused to grant him the expatriation allowance, considering that during the reference period, from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2004, the applicant was living in Belgium.

The applicant contests that decision, claiming that the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003, during which he worked in Brussels as scientific advisor at the Academy of Finland, should not be taken into account since the Academy does not have a distinct legal personality but is part of the Finnish State. On that basis, the applicant pleads infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and an error of law.

---
May 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HINDU ASHRAM, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-15-00170-CV V.

SANJAY SARAN MATHUR, SEEMA MATHUR AND THE HEIRS OF 

RAMESH S. MATHUR, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on September 24, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability and request for comment.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FAA is announcing the availability of and requesting comment on proposed TSO-C166b. The Avionic Systems Branch of the Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA has presented a proposed revision of existing TSO-C166a. RTCA, Inc. Special Committee (SC)-186 is revising RTCA Document DO-260A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information-Broadcast (TIS-B), which will become the Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) for the proposed TSO-166b. Proposed TSO-C166b can be found at                         *http://www.faa.gov/​aircraft/​draft_​docs/​.*                         Comments may be filed electronically following instructions on the webpage. Comments may also be filed using the addresses provided below.                    

# DATES:

Comments must be received no later than October 9, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted by the above deadline to Mr. Chip Bulger, AIR-130, Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-385-4651.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Chip Bulger, Avionics Systems Branch, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-385-4882;                         *chip.bulger@faa.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2009.

David W. Hempe,

Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division.

[FR Doc. E9-21953 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
HomeMauritius

# Mauritius

49 items

        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Sison’s Travel to Madagascar, South Africa, Mauritius, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mauritius	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Mauritius National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 12, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth	  December 15, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Mauritius	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mauritius	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Mauritius	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mauritius	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Mauritius National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 12, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Mauritius	  July 21, 2021 

previous page12345next page

Back to Top
#### Thomas EDMONDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 6, 1974.

*459James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Catherine Wings Slocum, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. As a result of negotiations he pled guilty to both counts and received the agreed upon sentence of 18 months on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant raises on appeal the question of whether or not the court erred in accepting his guilty pleas without adequately complying with the requirements of Rule 3.170(j) CrPR. When the court accepted the guilty pleas the appellant’s counsel stated that appellant had broken and entered the two houses but did not take anything. Appellant contends that a factual basis for the plea was not established because he pled to breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony; whereas, the statement of his counsel is to the effect that he could only have been guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor.

The record clearly establishes that the appellant’s pleas were voluntarily made with a full understanding of their significance. However, under the circumstances the factual basis established in the record does not support a finding of guilty of the crime to which he pled. Under the Due Process Clause of the Constitutions of the U. S. and State of Florida, each and every person is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial.

In Hall v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 303 So.2d 417 (opinion filed November 13, 1974) the record disclosed no facts upon which the trial court could determine the basis for the plea of guilty and no prejudice to Hall was alleged.

In view of the foregoing, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for an inquiry into the existence of a factual basis for the plea of guilty to the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

Reversed and remanded.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
HomeCircular Notes and Notices – Office of Foreign Missions...Health Care

# 									Health Care							

Circular Notes and Notices

**02/07/24:**Notice: Health Insurance Expectations (IOs)

**02/07/24:**Diplomatic Note 24-210: Health Insurance Expectations

Tags

Health CareHealth InformationOffice of Foreign Missions

Back to Top
# C_2006086EN.01001101.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/11

---

Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-14/06)

(2006/C 86/18)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2006 (lodged by fax on 6 January 2006) by the European Parliament, represented by Mr K. Bradley, Mr A. Neergaard and Mrs I. Klavina, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;

| 2. | order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 (1) exempts decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95 (2) on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to respect the conditions laid down for such exemptions by Article 5(1) of that Directive and has therefore exceeded the powers it derives from that provision. In so far as there exists scientific uncertainty as to the health and environmental consequences of DecaBDE use, the Commission has committed a manifest error in assessing the scientific evidence and failed to respect the precautionary principle. By extending the exemption to all the polymeric applications of DecaBDE, without exception, it has breached the principle of proportionality. The Commission has failed to provide a proper statement of reasons for its decision to exempt DecaBDE.

1

2

---

(1)  Official Journal L 271, 15/10/2005 P. 0048 - 0050

1

Official Journal L 271, 15/10/2005 P. 0048 - 0050

(2)  Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023

2

Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023

---
694 A.2d 618

#### Anton H. BROCKELMAN, Jr., Appellee, v. Jacques HATTER, Hatter Coal Company, Inc., and Sherman Coal Company, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 17, 1996.

Decided June 19, 1997.

*63
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

NIGRO, J., dissents.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of Oxidation Damage in Thermal Barrier Coating SystemsA method based on the technique of dilatometry has been established to quantitatively evaluate the interfacial damage due to the oxidation in a thermal barrier coating system. Strain isolation and adhesion coefficients have been proposed to characterize the thermal barrier coating (TBC) performance based on its thermal expansion behavior. It has been found that, for a thermal barrier coating system consisting of ZrO2-8%Y2O3/FeCrAlY/4140 steel substrate, the oxidation of the bond coat and substrate significantly reduced the ceramic coating adherence, as inferred from the dilatometry measurements. The in-situ thermal expansion measurements under 30 deg C to 700 deg C thermal cycling in air showed that the adhesion coefficient, A(sub i) decreased by 25% during the first 35 oxidation cycles. Metallography showed that delamination occurred at both the ceramic/bond coat and bond coat/substrate interfaces. In addition, the strain isolation effect has been improved by increasing the FeCrAlY bond coat thickness. The strain isolation coefficient, Si, increased from about 0.04 to 0.25, as the bond coat thickness changed from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm. It may be possible to design optimum values of strain isolation and interface adhesion coefficients to achieve the best TBC performance.Document ID19970021978Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsZhu, Dongming*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Miller, Robert A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107360NAS1.15:107360ARL-XA-TR-1254AD-A320578NASA-E-10518Accession Number97N22656Funding Number(s)PROJECT: DA Proj. 1L1-61102-AH-45Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsTHERMAL PROPERTIESBARRIER COATINGSAvailable DownloadsNameType19970021978.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                    THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               CYTOGEN CORPORATION


     CYTOGEN  CORPORATION,  a corporation  organized  and existing  under and by
virtue  of  the  General   Corporation   Law  of  the  State  of  Delaware  (the
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY as follows:

     FIRST: That Article FIFTH of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation,  as
amended,  of the  Corporation  is hereby  amended to read, in its  entirety,  as
follows:

     "FIFTH:  A. Total Capital Stock.  The total number of shares of all classes
of capital  stock which the  Corporation  shall have  authority  to issue is TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND  (255,400,000) shares, of which
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION  (250,000,000)  shall be shares of Common Stock, $0.01
par value per share  ("Common  Stock"),  and FIVE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED  THOUSAND
(5,400,000)  shares  shall  be  Preferred  Stock,  $0.01  par  value  per  share
("Preferred Stock").

     B. Common Stock.  Each holder of Common Stock shall be entitled to one vote
for each share of Common  Stock held on all  matters on which  holders of Common
Stock shall be entitled to vote.

     C. Preferred Stock. The Board of Directors of the Corporation is authorized
to cause  the  Preferred  Stock to be issued  in one or more  series,  with such
voting powers, full or limited, or no voting powers, and with such designations,
preferences  and relative,  participating,  optional or other special rights and
qualifications,  limitations  or  restrictions  thereof,  as shall be stated and
expressed in the resolution or resolutions providing for the issue of such stock
adopted by the Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors of the Corporation is
expressly  authorized to adopt such  resolution or resolutions and to issue such
stock as may be desirable.

     D. Residual  Rights.  All rights accruing to the outstanding  shares of the
Corporation not expressly provided for to the contrary herein shall be vested in
the outstanding shares of Common Stock and Preferred Stock pari passu."

     SECOND:  That the  aforesaid  amendments  were duly adopted by the Board of
Directors and by the  stockholders  of the  Corporation  in accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.



                                     *******



<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has caused this  Certificate  to be
signed by its duly elected President on this 14th day of May, 2000.
                                             ----



                                           CYTOGEN CORPORATION


                                           By:  /s/ H. Joseph Reiser
                                           H. Joseph Reiser, Ph.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 423.1050 Witnesses.

Witnesses at the hearing testify under oath or affirmation. The representative of each party is permitted to examine his or her own witnesses subject to interrogation by the representative of the other party. The ALJ may ask any questions that he or she deems necessary. The ALJ rules upon any objection made by either party as to the propriety of any question.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6502

ASKARI DANSO MS LUMUMBA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

a nd

JOHN BEVERLY; ANTHONY SHAW; TYRONE TROWELL; THOMAS ROSE

,

Plaintiffs

,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the VADOC; A. DAVID ROBINSON, VADOC Chief of Correctional Operations; DAVID ANDERSON, Warden at RNCC; GLOBAL TEL LINK (GTL )

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia

, at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:22

- cv

- 00080

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN

, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Askari Danso MS Lumumba , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:

Askari Danso MS Lumumba appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)

.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. Lumumba v. Clarke , No. 7:22

- cv

- 00080

- MFU

- JCH (W.D. Va. May

11, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 3 of 3