alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Estonia National Day

# 									Estonia National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 24, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Estonia as you celebrate your independence on February 24.

For more than 100 years, the close partnership and alliance between the United States and Estonia has been grounded in our commitment to democratic values, determination to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, and resolve to expand economic opportunity. I look forward to a shared future that will benefit our citizens and further expand our vibrant people-to-people ties.

Over the past year, Estonia has shown unwavering support for Ukraine, as its people defend their country and their freedom against Russia’s brutal aggression. The United States will continue to work in unbreakable solidarity with Estonia to defend NATO territory, support Ukraine, counter Russia’s aggression and malign influence, and advance democracy.

Together the United States and Estonia champion the strong transatlantic ties that allow us together to deter and defend against threats to our security, our economies, and our democracies, as we work to advance the human rights of all.

I wish all people in Estonia a joyous celebration, prosperity, and health in this coming year.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsEstoniaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 405.1106 Where a request for review or escalation may be filed. ( a ) When a request for a Council review is filed after an ALJ or attorney adjudicator has issued a decision or dismissal, the request for review must be filed with the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action. The appellant must also send a copy of the request for review to the other parties to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator decision or dismissal who received notice of the decision or dismissal. Failure to copy the other parties tolls the Council's adjudication deadline set forth in § 405.1100 until all parties to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator decision or dismissal receive notice of the request for Council review. If the request for review is timely filed with an entity other than the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action, the Council's adjudication period to conduct a review begins on the date the request for review is received by the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action. Upon receipt of a request for review from an entity other than the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action, the Council sends written notice to the appellant of the date of receipt of the request and commencement of the adjudication timeframe.
( b ) If an appellant files a request to escalate an appeal to the Council level because the ALJ or attorney adjudicator has not completed his or her action on the request for hearing within an applicable adjudication period under § 405.1016, the request for escalation must be filed with OMHA and the appellant must also send a copy of the request for escalation to the other parties who were sent a copy of the QIC reconsideration. Failure to copy the other parties tolls the Council's adjudication deadline set forth in § 405.1100 until all parties who were sent a copy of the QIC reconsideration receive notice of the request for escalation. In a case that has been escalated from OMHA, the Council's 180 calendar day period to issue a final decision, dismissal order, or remand order begins on the date the request for escalation is received by the Council.
[82 FR 5122, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lydia SABBAGH, Appellee.

No. 74-1770.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 7, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mildred DELANEUVILLE et al. v. RESERVE TELEPHONE COMPANY et al.

No. 10654.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1980.

Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Dillon & Cambre, David M. Cambre, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before GARRISON, CHEHARDY and STOULIG, JJ.

GARRISON, Judge.

Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages for an alleged interference with a natural predial servitude of drain arising from the situation of estates and the natural flow of surface waters as mandated by C.C. Art. 655, as revised by Acts of 1977, No. 514 § 1, formerly numbered 660. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant elevated its estate approximately two feet which caused the natural flow of water to reverse and flood her estate. At trial, the district court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing plaintiff’s case. From that judgment which we now affirm, the plaintiff appealed.

If Mrs. Delaneuville had carried her burden of proof in showing that a natural servitude of drain had previously existed in her favor, then she would be entitled to relief under Art. 655. Plaintiff, however, failed to establish that a servitude of drain had *ever*existed in her favor. In fact, plaintiff’s own witnesses indicated that Mrs. Delaneuville’s property was subject to general flooding some 40 years prior to the acquisition of the neighboring estate by Reserve Telephone Co. Accordingly, the trial judge properly granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and the judgment is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*
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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                This schecdule contains summary financial information
                extracted from form 10-Q for this period ended
                December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
                by reference to such form 10-Q.

</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0 
<INVENTORY>                                  0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0
<PP&E>                                       0 
<DEPRECIATION>                               0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               0 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   69,139 
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0 
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 3,505 
<OTHER-SE>                                   0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 0
<SALES>                                      0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0 
<CGS>                                        0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         2,933  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,933) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (2,933) 
<DISCONTINUED>                               0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0 
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,933) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.00)


         

</TABLE>
§ 419.1 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This part implements section 1833(t) of the Act by establishing a prospective payment system for services furnished on or after July 1, 2000 by hospital outpatient departments to Medicare beneficiaries who are registered on hospital records as outpatients.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart describes the basis of payment for outpatient hospital services under the prospective payment system. Subpart B sets forth the categories of hospitals and services that are subject to the outpatient hospital prospective payment system and those categories of hospitals and services that are excluded from the outpatient hospital prospective payment system. Subpart C sets forth the basic methodology by which prospective payment rates for hospital outpatient services are determined. Subpart D describes Medicare payment amounts, beneficiary copayment amounts, and methods of payment to hospitals under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. Subpart E describes how the hospital outpatient prospective payment system may be updated. Subpart F describes limitations on administrative and judicial review. Subpart G describes the transitional payment adjustments that are made before 2004 to limit declines in payment for outpatient services.
§ 412.600 Basis and scope of subpart. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements section 1886(j) of the Act, which provides for the implementation of a prospective payment system for inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units (in this subpart referred to as “inpatient rehabilitation facilities”).
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the framework for the prospective payment system for inpatient rehabilitation facilities, including the methodology used for the development of payment rates and associated adjustments, the application of a transition phase, and related rules. Under this system, for cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2002, payment for the operating and capital costs of inpatient hospital services furnished by inpatient rehabilitation facilities to Medicare Part A fee-for-service beneficiaries is made on the basis of prospectively determined rates and applied on a per discharge basis.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended August 27, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Nicholas Konidaris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Nicholas Konidaris                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Nicholas Konidaris                     |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |
| Dated: September 22,  2005        |

 

This certification is madesolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any otherpurpose.  A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ElectroScientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro ScientificIndustries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 417.402 Effective date of initial regulations. ( a ) The changes made to section 1876 of the Act by section 114 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 became effective on February 1, 1985, the effective date of the initial implementing regulations.
( b ) No new cost plan contracts are accepted by CMS. CMS will, however, accept and approve applications to modify cost plan contracts in order to expand service areas, provided they are submitted on or before September 1, 2006, and CMS determines that the organization continues to meet regulatory requirements and the requirements in its cost plan contract. Section 1876 cost plan contracts will not be extended or renewed beyond December 31, 2007, where conditions in paragraph (c) of this section are present.
( c ) *Mandatory HMO or CMP and contract non-renewal or service area reduction.* CMS will non-renew all or a portion of an HMO's or CMP's contracted service area using procedures in § 417.492(b) and § 417.494(a) for any period beginning on or after January 1, 2013, where— ( 1 ) There were two or more coordinated care plan-model MA regional plans not offered by the same MA organization in the same service area or portion of a service area for the entire previous calendar year meeting the conditions in paragraph(c)(3) of this section; or
( 2 ) There were two or more coordinated care plan-model MA local plans not offered by the same MA organization in the same service area or portion of a service area for the entire previous calendar year meeting the conditions in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
( 3 ) *Minimum enrollment requirements.* With respect to any service area or portion of a service area that is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of more than 250,000 and counties contiguous to the MSA that are not in another MSA with a population of more than 250,000, 5000 enrolled individuals. If the service area includes a portion in more than one MSA with a population of more than 250,000, the minimum enrollment determination is made with respect to each such MSA and counties contiguous to the MSA that are not in another MSA with a population of more than 250,000.
[63 FR 35066, June 26, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 40314, June 29, 2000; 67 FR 13288, Mar. 22, 2002; 70 FR 4713, Jan. 28, 2005; 73 FR 54248, Sept. 18, 2008; 76 FR 21560, Apr. 15, 2011; 76 FR 54633, Sept. 1, 2011]
# C_2005217EN.01003304.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-497/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/73)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 13 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-497/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 5.02.2005.

1

---
# Kyrgyzstan

96 items

        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Kyrgyz Republic	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Kyrgyz Republic	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		Evaluation of Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP) and Special Assistance to Business Internship and Training (SABIT) [PDF]	  May 18, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Kyrgyz Republic	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Kyrgyzstan	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		Evaluation of US-funded Community Policing Projects in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (2012-2018) [PDF]	  April 15, 2019 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		Democracy Commission Small Grants Program Evaluation [PDF]	  April 13, 2019 

previous page1…678910next page

Back to Top
# C_2005330EN.01001202.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/12

---

Removal from the register of Case C-402/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 330/25)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

By order of 4 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-402/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

1

---
#### BARNETT BANK OF BROWARD COUNTY, a Florida banking corporation, Appellant, v. Jay TABATCHNICK and Marilyn Tabatchnick, his wife, and Bruce Tabatchnick and Meryl Tabatchnick, his wife, and First National Bank of Hollywood, a banking corporation, Appellees.

No. 80-1647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 5, 1981.

Chad P. Pugatch of Cooper, Shahady, Frazier & Pugatch, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Gary M. Farmer and Jack F. Weins of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider & Mager, P. A., Hollywood, for appellee First Nat. Bank of Hollywood.

OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge.

The substantive appellate issue presented is whether the court erred in denying a judgment creditor’s motion for judgment in garnishment against the garnishee bank, appellee herein. We are unable to reach this question because of lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant, a judgment creditor, caused writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon appellee, the garnishee, whose answer to the writ disclosed that it held certain assets of the defendants but against which it claimed a setoff in excess of the value of the property held by it. Appellant filed no reply to the garnishee’s answer, but instead filed a motion for judgment in garnishment. After a hearing on that motion the court entered the order herein sought to be reviewed which simply stated that the garnishor’s motion for judgment in garnishment “. . . be, and the same is hereby denied.”

While this appeal was pending, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We elected to defer ruling on the motion, requesting that counsel address that issue at the time of presenting oral argument on the merits. We have concluded that we do not have appellate jurisdiction and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Garnishment, while ancillary in nature, is nonetheless a separate and distinct proceeding which in its present statutory form, requires service of writ and permits service of an answer by the garnishee, a reply by the plaintiff, a motion to dissolve by the defendant, and affidavits on behalf of any third person claiming the garnished property. Each has certain definite procedural consequences, some provide for a trial or hearing in one form or another, and all contemplate ultimate entry of final judgment which terminates the writ, either by discharging the garnishee from further liability under the writ or by awarding judgment in favor of the judgment creditor against the garnishee.

The order under review here is neither a final appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, nor an appeala-ble non-final order under Rule 9.130(a)(3) or (4). *Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach v. Cloverleaf Hospital, Inc.,*194 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The court simply lacks jurisdiction. *Atria v. Anton,*379 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Dismissed.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.2
                                                                  ------------

               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE (Unaudited)
               ----------------------------------------------------

                                              Six Months Ended               Three Months Ended
                                                   April 30,                      April 30,
                                            2 0 0 3         2 0 0 2        2 0 0 3         2 0 0 2
<S>                                   <C>             <C>            <C>              <C>

Basic and diluted earnings:
  Net (loss) income                      $ (891,637)     $(2,694,749)   $ (595,187)      $(2,198,240)

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding      2,594,453        2,579,869     2,594,453         2,594,453
                                         ----------      -----------    ----------       -----------

Basic and diluted earnings
 per common share                        $     (.34)     $     (1.04)   $     (.23)      $      (.85)
                                         ===========     ============   ===========      ============

</TABLE>
#### Louis M. WATTIGNEY, Jr. v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 66148.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1979.

In re Government Employees Insurance Company, applying for writ of certiorari or review. Jefferson Parish. No. 212-813.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Dennis HOLMES v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 80-KH-2044.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Dennis Holmes, applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans. No. 227-232.

Writ denied.