alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 412.344 Hold-harmless payment methodology. ( a ) *General.* A hospital paid under the hold-harmless payment methodology receives a payment per discharge based on the higher of: ( 1 ) 85 percent of reasonable costs for old capital costs (100 percent for sole community hospitals) plus an amount for new capital costs based on a proportion of the Federal rate. The proportion is equal to the ratio of the hospital's Medicare inpatient costs for new capital to total Medicare inpatient capital costs; or
( 2 ) 100 percent of the Federal rate.
( 3 ) *Exceptions.* ( i ) A hospital that would receive higher payment under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may elect payment based on 100 percent of the Federal rate under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( ii ) A hospital that does not maintain records that are adequate to identify its old capital costs is deemed to have elected payment per discharge based on 100 percent of the Federal rate.
( b ) *Continued basis of payment.* A hospital paid based on 100 percent of the Federal rate during the later of its cost reporting period beginning in FY 1994 or its first cost reporting period beginning after obligated capital that is recognized as old capital under § 412.302(b) is put in use continues to be paid on that basis in subsequent cost reporting periods during the transition period and does not receive a reasonable cost payment for old capital costs under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Basis of determination.* The determination under paragraph (a) of this section regarding which payment alternative is applicable is made without regard to additional payments under the exceptions process under § 412.348.
( d ) *Interim and final payment determinations.* ( 1 ) Using the best data available, the intermediary makes an interim payment determination under paragraph (a) of this section concerning the applicable payment alternative, and, in the case of payment under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the payment amounts for old and new capital. The intermediary notifies the hospital of its determination at least 30 days before the beginning of the hospital's first cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 1991. The intermediary may revise its determination based on additional information submitted by the hospital and make appropriate adjustments retroactively.
( 2 ) The final determination of the amount payable under paragraph (a) of this section is based on final settlement of the Medicare cost report for the applicable cost reporting period and is effective retroactively to the beginning of that cost reporting period. This final determination is subject to administrative and judicial review in accordance with subpart R of part 405 of this chapter, governing provider reimbursement determinations and appeals.
[56 FR 43449, Aug. 30, 1991; 57 FR 3017, Jan. 27, 1992]
#### Samuel Paul DEUTSCH, Appellant, v. Elaine Simpson DEUTSCH, Appellee.

No. 77-1793.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1979.

Sara Soto and William Berger of Bailey & Dawes, P. A., Miami, for appellant.

Harry G. Carratt of Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, P. A., Ft. Lauderdale, for appel-

DAUKSCH, Judge.

On appeal is an order of the trial court finding appellant in contempt for non-payment of alimony. This order is reversed for the same reason we reversed the prior order in this case as reported in *Deutsch v. Deutsch,*349 So.2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). There was no proper finding of wilfulness and no proper finding of ability to pay. Beyond the insufficiency of the order, the court summarily precluded the appellant from presenting his case thereby rendering the insufficient order wrong even if it were sufficient.

We have also for our consideration the order denying appellant’s petition for modification. Again, the trial judge summarily refused to permit the parties their right to be heard on the issues raised by the petition.

The order of contempt is reversed and the order denying modification is reversed with instructions to permit both parties to have a full and fair hearing on the issues of modification followed by an adequate and complete order thereon. Any orders entered after the orders reversed here which find the appellant in contempt for non-payment of alimony are hereby stayed pending final disposition of the order determining the question of modification.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

LETTS, J., concurring specially with opinion.

LETTS, Judge,

concurring specially:

I completely agree with the majority opinion, yet I am apprehensive as to what will happen next. I have every sympathy for trial judges. They are on the firing line, we are not. Moreover they see we appellate judges make many mistakes ourselves — with less excuse. Nevertheless one gets a feeling of hopelessness for the sys-*626tern when any trial judge ignores our directions and goes his own way. The obvious question is: Will he do it again? What will happen to the system?

Meanwhile this appellant spent 44 days in jail for a supposed contempt that this court had already ruled was not established as such, in an exactly parallel proceeding involving the same appellant in the same case before the same court.1

The wife argues that because the husband has purged himself of this particular contempt, he has rendered the matter moot. I do not agree. The issue here is whether the judge’s order of contempt was proper. It was not and the root problem must be addressed for the contempt orders continue to multiply. We note the wife has even filed a motion to dismiss this cause predicated on subsequent unpurged contempt orders! Where will it end? I cannot forecast that; but the end can begin if the trial judge will follow the instructions of this court.

1

. The case was not before the same judge.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Individuals Linked to the Conflict in Sudan

# 									Designation of Individuals Linked to the Conflict in Sudan							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

December 4, 2023

The United States is today designating three officials of the former Omar al-Bashir regime: Mohamed Atta Elmoula Abbas, Taha Osman Ahmed al-Hussein, and Salah Abdallah Mohamed Salah, also known as Salah Gosh.  These individuals have engaged in activities that undermine the peace, security, and stability of Sudan.  Elmoula and Gosh are former security officials who worked to return former regime elements to power and undermine efforts to establish civilian government, while Taha worked to facilitate the delivery of military and other materiel support from external sources to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

This action advances our efforts to undermine those fueling the conflict and obstructing the Sudanese people’s aspirations for peace and civilian, democratic rule.  The United States will continue to use the tools at our disposal to disrupt the ability of the RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces to further prolong this war, and to hold accountable those responsible for deepening the conflict or obstructing a return to civilian government.

The United States also is committed to promoting accountability for those responsible for atrocities in the conflict.  We stand in solidary with the people of Sudan and against those who commit human rights abuses and destabilize the region.  The warring parties must comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, and we call on them to protect civilians, hold accountable those responsible for atrocities or other abuses, allow unhindered humanitarian access, and negotiate an end to the conflict.

*Today’s measures build on previous designations of individuals from the al-Bashir regime, including Ali Karti and Abdelbasit Hamza.  The Department of the Treasury actions were taken pursuant to Executive Order 14098 *“Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons Destabilizing Sudan and Undermining the Goal of a Democratic Transition.”*  For more information on these designations, see Treasury’s press release.*

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsConflictsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSudan

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3229 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3229

 To require that wages paid under a Federal contract are greater than 
            the local poverty line, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1996

  Mr. Vento introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require that wages paid under a Federal contract are greater than 
            the local poverty line, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Livable Wage Act''.

SEC. 2. WAGES UNDER CONTRACTS.

    (a) General Rule.--No executive agency of the Government of the 
United States (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States 
Code) may enter into a contract which does not require that the wages 
paid under the contract, including wages paid under any subcontract to 
such contract but not including wages paid in connection with a bona 
fide job training or apprenticeship program, exceed the poverty line 
(as defined in section 673(2)) of the Community Service Block Grant Act 
(42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) for a family of 4 in the area in which such 
contract or subcontract will be executed. For purposes of this 
subsection, the term ``wages'' includes any benefits made available 
with wages such as health insurance.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to contracts between 
an executive agency and a business entity with 50 or fewer employees.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2006048EN.01003001.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Merladet v Commission

(Case T-198/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal exercise - Proper conduct of the reporting procedure - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 48/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Félix Merladet (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. de Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Defendant:

:

Application for

Annulment of the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
exv10w13






Exhibit 10.13




Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Summary of Director Compensation



Annual Retainers:



Non-employee directors each receive an annual retainer of $40,000. In addition, the chairperson of
the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $10,000, and the chairpersons of each of the
Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual
retainer of $6,000. Members of the Audit Committee other than the chairperson receive an annual
retainer of $7,000, and members of each of the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee receive an annual retainer of $5,000. All retainers are payable in
cash, in four equal installments on the first day of each fiscal quarter.



Meeting Fees:



Non-employee
directors each receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended in person
and are reimbursed for their expenses in attending such meetings.



Equity Awards:



Non-employee directors shall receive an annual award of restricted stock units valued at $50,000,
on the first business day of each fiscal year. These restricted stock units vest upon a director’s
retirement.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Russian Virtual Currency Money Launderer

# 									Designating Russian Virtual Currency Money Launderer							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

November 3, 2023

The United States is sanctioning Ekaterina Zhdanova, a Russian national, for her role in laundering hundreds of millions of dollars using virtual currency on behalf of sanctioned Russian elites. Zhdanova has also provided a range of virtual, cash-based, tax residency and other services to Russian clients seeking to launder funds or obscure the sources of their wealth. Among others, she has provided such services to individuals connected with a ransomware group that U.S. law enforcement identified as a cybercrime threat to healthcare providers in the United States.

Our action today highlights the consequences of supporting corrupt Kremlin proxies, underscores the United States’s efforts to address the abuse of virtual currency to launder illicit funds, and exposes an illicit actor’s money laundering activities. This action is also consistent with the G7’s commitment to cracking down on sanctions evasion and closing loopholes that allow the Russian Federation, its elites, proxies, and oligarchs to leverage virtual currency to offset the impact of international sanctions.

The United States is committed to safeguarding the integrity of our financial system, including the virtual assets ecosystem. We will continue to use all available tools to target Russia-based cybercrime and counter the threat posed by ransomware in coordination with national and international partners.

The Department of the Treasury is designating Zhdanova pursuant to Executive Order 14024 for operating or having operated in the financial services sector of the Russian Federation economy. For more information on this designation, see Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCorruptionOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctions

Back to Top
# C_2006086EN.01003202.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Action brought on 21 January 2006 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-21/06)

(2006/C 86/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them.

In support of its action the applicant submits, in particular, that the aid granted is compatible with the common market and complains that the Commission made numerous errors of judgment and assessment in its application of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Instead of carrying out an assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC, the defendant used a new method of assessment of market failure which, in the way it was carried out, was not suitable to determine the compatibility or incompatibility of the aid with the common market. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission did not carry out an adequate assessment under Article 87(3)(b) EC of the compatibility of the aid granted.

In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed general principles of law. It complains that the principle of sound administration and the principle of the right to be heard were infringed.

---
Exhibit 21.1
                   Subsidiaries of Omega Financial Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary                                         State or Jurisdiction          Trade Name
                                                             of Incorporation              (if any)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                            <C>
Omega Bank, N.A.                                              United States                    -
P.O. Box 298
State College, PA    16804

Hollidaysburg Trust Company                                   Pennsylvania                     -
224 Allegheny Street
Hollidaysburg, PA  16648

Penn Central National Bank                                    United States                    -
431 Penn Street
Huntingdon, PA  16652

Central Pennsylvania Investment Company                       Delaware                         -
1105 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899

Central Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company                   Arizona                          -
1421 E. Thomas Road
Phoenix, AZ  85014

Central Pennsylvania Leasing, Inc.                            Pennsylvania                     -

Central Pennsylvania Real Estate, Inc.                        Pennsylvania                     -

</TABLE>
AAM-12-223-E March 05, 2012 Exemption No. 10476 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0164

Ms. Desiree Marie Pinckney Central Helicopter Service, Inc.

8913 Paul B. Koonce Street Houston, TX 77061

Dear Ms. Pinckney:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 8, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Central Helicopter Service, Inc. (Central Helicopter), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Central Helicopter, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Central Helicopter.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Central Helicopter Service, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Central Helicopter, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Central Helicopter are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Central Helicopter part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
FEWS NET Afghanistan FEWS NET Washington 

1717 H St NW 

Washington DC 20006 

info@fews.net 

FEWS NET is a USAID-funded activity. The authors’ views expressed in 

this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of the United States 

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

www.fews.net/afghanistan 

AFGHANISTAN Weekly Climate Forecast #50, Dec 17 - 23, 2008 

During mid-November temperatures plunged to 4 to 8 °C 

degrees below-average. However, during late November and 

early December, temperatures were above-average, except in 

the highest elevations of northeast Afghanistan where 

temperatures remained below-average. During the next week, 

below-average temperatures can be expected across all of 

Afghanistan (Figure 2). 

Thus far, significant snowfall has accumulated in the 

northeastern parts of the country, with lighter amounts in the 

central highlands. From October 1 - December 10, 

precipitation has averaged above normal across western and 

northern Afghanistan. Drier-than-normal conditions have 

affected the remainder of the country. 

During the next several days, a slow-moving storm system will 

bring widespread precipitation to Afghanistan and surrounding 

areas (Figure 3). Heavy rain and high-elevation snow can be 

expected (Figure 1). Snow coverage and depths will increase 

during the upcoming week. 

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan 

Figure 2. Temperatures Anomaly (°F): December 16 - 23 Figure 3. Precipitation (inches) forecast for 

December 16 - 20, 2008 

Source: NOAA