alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Supplemental Instructions for Reporting **Students with Intellectual Disabilities Data on the**

**Fiscal Operations Report for 2014** **- 2015**  **and Application to Participate for 2016** **- 2017**  **(FISAP) Introduction**  Under section 484(s) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, a student with intellectual disabilities who enrolls in an eligible C omprehensive T ransition and P ostsecondary (CTP) program may receive Title IV program funds under the Federal Pell Gra nt (Pell Grant ) , Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), and Federal Work

- Study (FWS) programs. T hese students are **not** eligible to receive funding under other Title IV programs, such as the Federal Perkins Loan Program. These student s must meet all of the student eligibility requirements in 34 CFR 668.233 . Under those regulations, students with an intellectual disability, among other things, do not have to be high school graduates, have obtained a GED, or have passed an ability
-to - be nefit test, and they do not have to be enrolled in a program that leads to a degree or certificate. 

### Special FISAP Supplemental Instructions Because only a small number of institutions participating in the Campus
- Based programs have approved CTP program s at this time , we have not altered the original instructions on the FISAP. The FISAP currently only refers to students in regular academic programs . H owever, institutions that enroll eligible students with intellectual disabilities in an approved CTP program must also include these students in the appropriate fields on the FISAP as explained below: 

### Application to Participate for **2016 -**  **2017 portion of the FISAP**  **Part II, Section A . Request for Funds for the**  **2016 -**  **2017 Award Year**  In completing Part II, Section A , field 3 (FSEOG federal funds) and field 4 (FWS federal funds) the institution must include the funds it plans to award to students in the CTP program
. 

### Part II, Section D. Information **on Enro**  **llment** In completing Part II, Section D, the institution must include the CTP program students as undergraduate students. 

### Part II, Section E. Assessments and Expenditures In completing Part II, Section E, the institution must include any tuition and fees revenue collected for CTP program students in the undergraduate column in field 22 and it must include the Federal Pell Grant funds paid to these students in field 23(a). 

### Part II, Section F. Information on Eligible Aid Applicants Enrolled in Your School In compl eting Part II, Section F, the institution must include the CTP program students who applied for financi al aid for the 2014
- 2015 Award Year, regardless of whether or not they received financial aid. 

### Fiscal Operations Report for **2014 -**  **2015 portion of the FI**  **SAP Part IV**  **. FSEOG Program, Part V. FWS Program, and Part VI. Program Summary** In completing Part s IV, V, and VI of FISAP , the institution must include any CTP program students in the appropriate fields if they had received FSEOG and/or FWS funds for the 2014
- 2015 Award Year.
HomeEspañol...Decisión de Maduro de retirar invitación a observadores electorales de la Unión Europea

# 									Decisión de Maduro de retirar invitación a observadores electorales de la Unión Europea							

Traducciones en español

30  de mayo de  2024

Departamento de Estado de los Estados UnidosOficina del PortavozDeclaración del Portavoz, Matthew Miller30 de mayo de 2024

Estados Unidos está profundamente preocupado por la decisión de Nicolás Maduro y sus representantes de retirar una invitación a los observadores electorales de la Unión Europea. Esta acción va en contra de los compromisos adquiridos en Barbados en octubre de 2023 para apoyar la integridad del proceso electoral. Maduro y sus representantes deben revertir inmediatamente esta decisión y permitir una observación electoral internacional creíble que genere confianza en el proceso electoral.

Seguiremos trabajando con la comunidad internacional para apoyar las aspiraciones del pueblo venezolano por una Venezuela más democrática, estable y próspera.

----

Para ver el texto original, ir a: https://www.state.gov/maduros-decision-to-withdraw-invitation-to-european-union-election-observers/

Esta traducción se proporciona como una cortesía y únicamente debe considerarse fidedigna la fuente original en inglés.

Back to Top
#### Gregory Lee NEWSOME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1814.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1979.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, and Charles L. Stutts, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

While appellant, Gregory Lee Newsome, has raised several issues relating to his conviction for burglary and aggravated assault, we find that only one merits discussion. Appellant argues that the twenty year sentence imposed upon his conviction of aggravated assault is excessive. We agree.

The maximum allowable sentence for aggravated assault is five years. *See*§ 784.-021(2), Fla.Stat. (1977); § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1977).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction for aggravated assault is affirmed, but the case is remanded for the purpose of resen-tencing appellant for this conviction not to exceed five years.

The judgment of conviction for burglary of a dwelling and the sentence thereon are affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
§ 416.52 Conditions for coverage—Patient admission, assessment and discharge. The ASC must ensure each patient has the appropriate pre-surgical and post-surgical assessments completed and that all elements of the discharge requirements are completed. ( a ) *Standard: Patient assessment and admission.* ( 1 ) The ASC must develop and maintain a policy that identifies those patients who require a medical history and physical examination prior to surgery. The policy must— ( i ) Include the timeframe for medical history and physical examination to be completed prior to surgery.
( ii ) Address, but is not limited to, the following factors: Patient age, diagnosis, the type and number of procedures scheduled to be performed on the same surgery date, known comorbidities, and the planned anesthesia level.
( iii ) Be based on any applicable nationally recognized standards of practice and guidelines, and any applicable State and local health and safety laws.
( 2 ) Upon admission, each patient must have a pre-surgical assessment completed by a physician who will be performing the surgery or other qualified practitioner in accordance with applicable State health and safety laws, standards of practice, and ASC policy.
( 3 ) The pre-surgical assessment must include documentation of any allergies to drugs and biologicals.
( 4 ) The patient's medical history and physical examination (if any) must be placed in the patient's medical record prior to the surgical procedure.
( b ) *Standard: Post-surgical assessment.* ( 1 ) The patient's post-surgical condition must be assessed and documented in the medical record by a physician, other qualified practitioner, or a registered nurse with, at a minimum, post-operative care experience in accordance with applicable State health and safety laws, standards of practice, and ASC policy.
( 2 ) Post-surgical needs must be addressed and included in the discharge notes.
( c ) *Standard: Discharge.* The ASC must— ( 1 ) Provide each patient with written discharge instructions and overnight supplies. When appropriate, make a followup appointment with the physician, and ensure that all patients are informed, either in advance of their surgical procedure or prior to leaving the ASC, of their prescriptions, post-operative instructions and physician contact information for followup care.
( 2 ) Ensure each patient has a discharge order, signed by the physician who performed the surgery or procedure in accordance with applicable State health and safety laws, standards of practice, and ASC policy.
( 3 ) Ensure all patients are discharged in the company of a responsible adult, except those patients exempted by the attending physician.
[73 FR 68813, Nov. 18, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 51814, Sept. 30, 2019]
N o. 14

- 1 4

- 00 726

- CR

RICHARD ANTHONY SCOTT X 1 4TH COURT OF APPEALS

X

X

VS. X

X

X

THE STATE OF TEXAS X OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

C ourt

- Appointed Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw

TO THE COURT:

COMES NOW, BOB WICOFF, attorney at law, and moves to withdraw as

attorney of record for the Appellant, Richard Anthony Scott , in the above cause, and

as grounds therefore would show as follows:

I.

The undersigned is filing, simultaneously with this motion , the Appellant’s

B rief in Support of Motion to Withdraw , in which he argues that there are no

arguable issues to be raised in the Appellant’s appeal. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Stephens v. State , 35 S.W.3 d 770 (Tex.App.

-

Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet).

For the reasons that are stated in such brief, the undersigned moves that he be

allowed to withdraw from representing the Appellant further in this appeal. Should

this Court grant this motion, the undersig ned will attempt to inform the Appellant of

the result of his appeal and will also attempt to inform the Appellant that he may, on ACCEPTED

14-14-00726-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/18/2015 12:42:37 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKhis own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte

Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

The undersigned has mailed a copy of this motion, as well as a copy of both

the Appellant’s brief and a copy of the entire appellate record (which consists of one

volume of the Clerk’s Record, a nd four volume s of the Reporter’s Record ) to the

A ppellant at his current address, which is:

Richard Scott

TDCJ # 019 47385

Bartlett Unit

1 018 Arnold Drive

Bartlett , Texas 765 11

WHEREFORE, the undersigned moves that he be allowed to withdraw as

court

- appointed attorney of record for the Appellant, Richard Anthony Scott , in the

above styled appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Bunin

Chief Public Defender

Harris County Texas

/s/ Bob Wicoff

Bob Wicoff

Assistant Public Defender

Harris County Tex as

1 201 Franklin, 13 th floor

Houston Texas 77002

(713) 274

- 6781/(713)

- 368

- 9278 (Fax)

TBA No. 21422700

Bob.wicoff@pdo.hctx.netCertificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 18, 2015 , a true and correct copy of the

foregoing motion was delivered to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office,

appellate division, by efile.txcourts.gov , as well as to the Appellant at the following

address:

Richard Scott

TDCJ # 019 47385

Bartlett Unit

1 0 18 Arnold Drive

Bartlett , Texas 765 11

/s/ Bob Wicoff

Bob Wicoff
HomeDiplomatic Culinary Partnership

# Diplomatic Culinary Partnership

The Diplomatic Culinary Partnership embraces and utilizes food, hospitality, and the dining experience as diplomatic tools to engage foreign dignitaries, bridge cultures, and strengthen relationships with civil society.

In partnership with the James Beard Foundation, the Department of State has curated the American Culinary Corps, a network of more than 80 of the United States’ influential chefs and culinary professionals who participate in programs and events on behalf of the Department of State in the United States and abroad to foster cross-cultural exchange.  Participants from the American Culinary Corps, the foreign Diplomatic Corps, culinary community members, and U.S. government officials gathered in-person on February 9, 2023 to celebrate the Department of State’s strides to advance the nation’s culinary diplomacy.

Secretary Blinken Participates in a Culinary Corps Reception

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken participates in a MOU signing ceremony at a reception honoring the Diplomatic Chef Corps at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on February 9, 2023. [State Department photo by Ronny Przysucha/ Public Domain]

## Remarks and Releases

            -  February 9, 2023  								Secretary Antony J. Blinken At Diplomatic Culinary Partnership Memorandum of Understanding Signing Ceremony															 
            -  February 7, 2023  							ShareAmerica: Award-winning cuisine serves up Indigenous cultures													 
            -  February 7, 2023  								Secretary Blinken to Deliver Remarks at the Diplomatic Culinary Partnership Reception															 

## Programs

            -  							Arts Envoy													 

## American Culinary Corps Members

## Kitchen Cabinet Members

Back to Top
# C_2006121EN.01000902.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 29 March 2006 — The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

(Case C-169/06)

(2006/C 121/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc,

Applicant:

Defendant: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Defendant:

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

Interested Party

Questions referred

Where the specification in an application for a protected geographical indication (PGI) in respect of ‘Melton Mowbray Pork Pies’ made pursuant to Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (‘the Regulation’) defines the relevant geographical area pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of the Regulation as

the town of Melton Mowbray and its surrounding region bounded as follows:

| — | to the North by the A52 from the M1 and the A1 and including the city of Nottingham; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the North by the A52 from the M1 and the A1 and including the city of Nottingham;

| — | to the East by the A1 from the A52 to the A45 and including the towns of Grantham and Stamford; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the East by the A1 from the A52 to the A45 and including the towns of Grantham and Stamford;

| — | to the West by the M1 from the A52 and the A45; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to the West by the M1 from the A52 and the A45; and

| — | to the South by the A45 from the M1 and the A1 and including the town of Northampton |
| --- | --- |

—

to the South by the A45 from the M1 and the A1 and including the town of Northampton

| 1. | are the requirements of Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation capable of being satisfied insofar as the proposed PGI would apply to products produced and/or processed and/or prepared in places other than that whose name appears in the PGI; |
| --- | --- |

1.

are the requirements of Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation capable of being satisfied insofar as the proposed PGI would apply to products produced and/or processed and/or prepared in places other than that whose name appears in the PGI;

| 2. | if so, what criteria must be applied in delimiting the defined geographical area referred to in Articles 2(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

if so, what criteria must be applied in delimiting the defined geographical area referred to in Articles 2(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Regulation?

---
# C_2005281EN.01002301.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/23

---

Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Torijano Montero v Council

(Case T-302/05)

(2005/C 281/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, lawyer, A. Jaume, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Principally:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint together with the decision of appointment adopted by the appointing authority on 20 October 2004 in so far as it determined his grade pursuant to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint together with the decision of appointment adopted by the appointing authority on 20 October 2004 in so far as it determined his grade pursuant to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | advise the appointing authority of the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant in grade A*8 with retroactive effect as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

advise the appointing authority of the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant in grade A*8 with retroactive effect as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect;

In the alternative:

| — | order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded, at least in grade A*8, as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded, at least in grade A*8, as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect.

In any event:

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are, for the most part, identical to those relied on in Case T-207/05 Schulze v Commission.
   (1) The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the rules concerning the correspondence between types of posts, on the one hand, and categories and grades, on the other.

Schulze

Commission.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.

1

---
### Uranium resources of the Cedar Mountain area, Emery County, Utah - a regional synthesis

By: Henry S. Johnson Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1087B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (2342 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 32.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merchants
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph L. Boutin, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted
pursuant to [SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section-13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
Company.

                                       Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ Joseph L. Boutin
                                           -------------------------------
                                       Joseph L. Boutin
                                       President & Chief Executive Officer


                                       August 14, 2003
                                       ---------------
                                       Date


<PAGE>
§ 417.122 Protection of enrollees. ( a ) *Liability protection.* ( 1 ) Each HMO must adopt and maintain arrangements satisfactory to CMS to protect its enrollees from incurring liability for payment of any fees that are the legal obligation of the HMO. These arrangements may include any of the following: ( i ) Contractual arrangements that prohibit health care providers used by the enrollees from holding any enrollee liable for payment of any fees that are the legal obligation of the HMO.
( ii ) Insurance, acceptable to CMS.
( iii ) Financial reserves, acceptable to CMS, that are held for the HMO and restricted for use only in the event of insolvency.
( iv ) Any other arrangements acceptable to CMS.
( 2 ) The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to an HMO if CMS determines that State law protects the HMO enrollees from liability for payment of any fees that are the legal obligation of the HMO.
( b ) *Protection against loss of benefits if the HMO becomes insolvent.* The insolvency protection plan required under § 417.120(a) must provide for continuation of benefits as follows: ( 1 ) For all enrollees, for the duration of the contract period for which payment has been made.
( 2 ) For enrollees who are in an inpatient facility on the date of insolvency, until they are discharged from the facility.