alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 423.1044 Subpoenas. ( a ) *Basis for issuance.* The ALJ, upon his or her own motion or at the request of a party, may issue subpoenas if they are reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case.
( b ) *Timing of request by a party.* The party must file a written request for a subpoena with the ALJ at least 5 calendar days before the date set for the hearing.
( c ) *Content of request.* The request must: ( 1 ) Identify the witnesses or documents to be produced;
( 2 ) Describe their addresses or location with sufficient particularity to permit them to be found; and
( 3 ) Specify the pertinent facts the party expects to establish by the witnesses or documents, and indicate why those facts could not be established without use of a subpoena.
( d ) *Method of issuance.* Subpoenas are issued in the name of the Secretary.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                    RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

        Alpha 1 Biomedicals, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

        DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

        FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Alpha 1
Biomedicals, Inc., resolutions were adopted setting forth proposed amendments to
the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said
amendments to be advisable and directing that such amendments be considered at
the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders of said corporation. The resolutions
setting forth the proposed amendments are as follows:

        RESOLVED, that Section 1 of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Company be amended to read as follows:

        "1. Name. The name of the corporation is RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc."

        FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 4 of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Company be amended to read as follows:

        "4. Authorized Capital Stock. The total number of shares of capital
stock which the Corporation shall have the authority to issue is One Hundred One
Million (101,000,000) shares divided into two classes of which One Million
(1,000,000) shares of the par value of $.001 per share shall be designated
Preferred Stock and One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of the par value of
$.001 per share shall be designated Common Stock."

        SECOND: That thereafter, at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of said
corporation held on December 15, 2000, pursuant to notice in accordance with
Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the
necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the
amendments.

        THIRD: That said amendments were duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.



<PAGE>   2



        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Allan L. Goldstein, its President and Chief Executive Officer, this
15th day of December, 2000.

                                        ALPHA 1 BIOMEDICALS, INC.



                                 BY:    /s/ Allan L. Goldstein
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Allan L. Goldstein
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer




                                      2
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Investigations and Prosecutions of Atrocities in Darfur

# 									Investigations and Prosecutions of Atrocities in Darfur							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

July 13, 2023

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the continued atrocities and ethnically targeted killings committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its allied militias in West Darfur, as reported by credible sources.  The destruction of the village of Misterei and mass killings of its inhabitants, reportedly at the hands of the RSF and allied militias, and the report by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of a mass grave found near El Geneina containing the bodies of 87 people, including women and children, are but the latest examples of the horrific human cost of this war.

The atrocities and violence in Darfur demand accountability, meaningful justice for victims and the affected communities, and an end to impunity.  The United States applauds the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s July 13 announcement that alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the current fighting may be subject to ICC investigation and prosecution and that the Prosecutor’s office has commenced focused investigations on recent events.  Let this be a message to all who commit atrocities, in Sudan and elsewhere, that such crimes are an affront to humanity. We urge all states to cooperate with the ICC to deliver the justice promised to the people of Darfur.

The United States joins international and regional parties in demanding an immediate end to the fighting, unimpeded humanitarian access, and for all combatants to adhere to international humanitarian law and international human rights law.  The United States strongly objects to any form of external interference and military support for the belligerent parties, which will only intensify and prolong the conflict and contribute to regional instability.  There is no military solution to this conflict.  The Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF must silence their guns and start negotiations on a permanent cessation of hostilities.  The world is watching.

Tags

AtrocitiesBureau of African AffairsConflictsHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonSudan

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.418 Opportunity for networks. ( a ) A network may be comprised of at least 2 but not more than 20 small suppliers.
( b ) The following rules apply to networks that seek contracts under this subpart: ( 1 ) Each network must form a single legal entity that acts as the bidder and submits the bid. Any agreement entered into for purposes of forming a network must be submitted to CMS. The network must identify itself as a network and identify all of its members.
( 2 ) Each member of the network must satisfy the requirements in § 414.414(b) through (d).
( 3 ) A small supplier may join one or more networks but cannot submit an individual bid to furnish the same product category in the same CBA as any network in which it is a member. A small supplier may not be a member of more than one network if those networks submit bids to furnish the same product category in the same CBA.
( 4 ) The network cannot be anticompetitive, and this section does not supersede any Federal law or regulation that regulates anticompetitive behavior.
( 5 ) A bid submitted by a network must include a statement from each network member certifying that the network member joined the network because it is unable independently to furnish all of the items in the product category for which the network is submitting a bid to beneficiaries throughout the entire geographic area of the CBA.
( 6 ) At the time that a network submits a bid, the network's total market share for each product category that is the subject of the network's bid cannot exceed 20 percent of the Medicare demand for that product category in the CBA.
( c ) If the network is awarded a contract, each supplier must submit its own claims and will receive payment directly from Medicare for the items that it furnishes under the competitive bidding program.
[72 FR 18085, Apr. 10, 2007]
§ 435.1003 FFP for redeterminations. ( a ) If the Social Security Administration (SSA) notifies an agency that a beneficiary has been determined ineligible for SSI, FFP is available in Medicaid expenditures for services to the beneficiary as follows: ( 1 ) If the agency receives the SSA notice by the 10th day of the month, FFP is available under this section only through the end of the month unless the beneficiary requests a hearing under subpart E, part 431 of this subchapter.
( 2 ) If the agency receives the SSA notice after the 10th day of the month, FFP is available only through the end of the following month, unless the beneficiary requests a hearing under subpart E, part 431 of this subchapter.
( 3 ) If a beneficiary requests a hearing, FFP is available as specified in subpart E, part 431 of this subchapter.
( b ) The agency must take prompt action to determine eligibility after receiving the SSA notice.
( c ) When a change in Federal law affects the eligibility of substantial numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries, the Secretary may waive the otherwise applicable FFP requirements and redetermination time limits of this section, in order to provide a reasonable time to complete such redeterminations. The Secretary will designate an additional amount of time beyond that allowed under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, within which FFP will be available, to perform large numbers of redeterminations arising from a change in Federal law.
[43 FR 45204, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 17939, Mar. 23, 1979; 62 FR 1685, Jan. 13, 1997]
#### Clifford E. VARDAMAN et al. v. Alice CARROLL.

78-161.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 27, 1979.

*631Donald R. Hamlin, Pell City, for appellants.

William E. Hereford, Jr. of Hereford & Blair, P.C., Pell City, for appellee.

SHORES, Justice.

This is a boundary line dispute between coterminous landowners. The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment fixing the boundary consistent with the defendant’s contentions. We affirm.

The plaintiffs offered a survey which fixed the boundary consistent with their contentions. The defendant offered one made by a different surveyor which was consistent with her claim. Much of the testimony showed that through the years the line as fixed by the defendant’s survey- or had been observed by the respective owners as the true line. Monuments on the ground supported this line, as did yet a third survey.

The only contrary evidence is the survey made at the plaintiffs’ request. Mr. Luker, who made that survey, testified that the difference in the line fixed by him and that of the other surveyors was due to a difference in starting points and that he made a “judgment” call in determining the starting point. In short, the record is replete with evidence which supports the trial court’s judgment.

Therefore, we affirm. *Ferrell v. Shomo Land Co., Inc.,*345 So.2d 297 (Ala.1977); *Snider v. Shirley,*341 So.2d 677 (Ala.1977).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTime-Dependent Parabolic Finite Difference Formulation for Harmonic Sound Propagation in a Two-Dimensional Duct with FlowAn explicit finite difference real time iteration scheme is developed to study harmonic sound propagation in aircraft engine nacelles. To reduce storage requirements for future large 3D problems, the time dependent potential form of the acoustic wave equation is used. To insure that the finite difference scheme is both explicit and stable for a harmonic monochromatic sound field, a parabolic (in time) approximation is introduced to reduce the order of the governing equation. The analysis begins with a harmonic sound source radiating into a quiescent duct. This fully explicit iteration method then calculates stepwise in time to obtain the 'steady state' harmonic solutions of the acoustic field. For stability, applications of conventional impedance boundary conditions requires coupling to explicit hyperbolic difference equations at the boundary. The introduction of the time parameter eliminates the large matrix storage requirements normally associated with frequency domain solutions, and time marching attains the steady-state quickly enough to make the method favorable when compared to frequency domain methods. For validation, this transient-frequency domain method is applied to sound propagation in a 2D hard wall duct with plug flow.Document ID19970010251Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKreider, Kevin L.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Baumeister, Kenneth J.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberE-10525NAS 1.15:107363NASA-TM-107363Accession Number97N15455Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: RTOP-505-62-52Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010251.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
41252.

#### WADE FORD, INC. v. PERRIN et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

“Where a vendee is induced to enter into a contract for the sale of personalty by the fraud of the vendor, when the former discovers the fraud he has an election of remedies. One of such remedies is to rescind the contract, and another is to affirm the contract and sue for damages for the fraud.” *Walters v. Hagan,*53 Ga. App. 547, 550 (1) (186 SE 563), and cases cited. Both actions are in tort and at law.

Where the contract is affirmed and an action for damages for the fraud is instituted, an allegation of constructive knowledge is sufficient where the petition alleges that there was constructive knowledge of a defect represented not to exist and that the representation that the defect did not exist was made with the intention of deceiving the vendee. *Aderhold v. Zimmer,*86 Ga. App. 204, 205 (71 SE2d 270); *Code*§ 105-302.

The above authorities answer all of the questions argued by the plaintiff in error and answer all of the questions submitted, which are: (1) In an action for fraud and deceit is actual knowledge of the falsity of a misrepresentation necessary? No. (2) Where a petition alleged only constructive knowledge of the falsity of the alleged misrepresentation on the part of the defendant, is a cause of action for fraud and deceit alleged? Yes. (3) In such circumstances does the vendee have *795to rescind the contract and place the vendor in statu quo before he can bring an action for fraud and deceit to recover damages for the fraud? No. (4) Does the Civil Court of Fulton County have equity jurisdiction so as to be able to rescind a contract? It does not, but an action for fraud and deceit in either remedy is not an equity, but a pure law, case.

Argtjed April 5, 1965

Decided May 19, 1965

Rehearing denied June 10, 1965.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell & Moye, E. Smythe Gambrell, John W. Chambers, John K. Train, III,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alton T. Milam, J. Boykin Drew, James B. Drew, Jr.,*contra.

The above answers cover all the questions argued and determine that the court erred neither in overruling the demurrers to the petition, nor in overruling the motion for a new trial, nor in overruling the motion for a judgment n.o.v., as the petition was good as against the demurrers argued and the sharply conflicting evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*J,ordan and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<LEGEND>

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  August 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                    AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                                                2,674
<SECURITIES>                                                         19,426
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        16,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            557
<INVENTORY>                                                          25,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     67,541
<PP&E>                                                               41,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       19,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       96,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                13,369
<BONDS>                                                                 616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                                925
<OTHER-SE>                                                           79,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         96,149
<SALES>                                                              23,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     23,355
<CGS>                                                                13,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        13,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      9,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         709
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     513
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                           .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           .05
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModern Airfoil Ice AccretionsThis report presents results from the first icing tests performed in the Modem Airfoils program. Two airfoils have been subjected to icing tests in the NASA Lewis Icing Research Tunnel (IRT). Both airfoils were two dimensional airfoils; one was representative of a commercial transport airfoil while the other was representative of a business jet airfoil. The icing test conditions were selected from the FAR Appendix C envelopes. Effects on aerodynamic performance are presented including the effects of varying amounts of glaze ice as well as the effects of approximately the same amounts of glaze, mixed, and rime ice. Actual ice shapes obtained in these tests are also presented for these cases. In addition, comparisons are shown between ice shapes from the tests and ice shapes predicted by the computer code, LEWICE for similar conditions. Significant results from the tests are that relatively small amounts of ice can have nearly as much effect on airfoil lift coefficient as much greater amounts of ice and that glaze ice usually has a more detrimental effect than either rime or mixed ice. LEWICE predictions of ice shapes, in general, compared reasonably well with ice shapes obtained in the IRT, although differences in details of the ice shapes were observed.Document ID19970017671Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsAddy, Harold E., Jr.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Potapczuk, Mark G.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Sheldon, David W.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1997Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107423AIAA Paper 97-0174E-10667NAS 1.15:107423Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace SciencesLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 6, 1997End Date: January 10, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N19835Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-68-1CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970017671.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
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.3 Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context indicates otherwise— *Arrangements* means arrangements which provide that Medicare payment made to the provider that arranged for the services discharges the liability of the beneficiary or any other person to pay for those services.
*Covered* refers to services for which the law and the regulations authorize Medicare payment.
*Nominal charge provider* means a provider that furnishes services free of charge or at a nominal charge and is either a public provider, or another provider that ( 1 ) demonstrates to CMS's satisfaction that a significant portion of its patients are low-income, and
( 2 ) requests that payment for its services be determined accordingly.
*Participating* refers to a hospital or other facility that meets the conditions of participation and has in effect a Medicare provider agreement.
*Qualified hospital* means a facility that— ( a ) Is primarily engaged in providing, by or under the supervision of doctors of medicine or osteopathy, inpatient services for the diagnosis, treatment, and care or rehabilitation of persons who are sick, injured, or disabled;
( b ) Is not primarily engaged in providing skilled nursing care and related services for inpatients who require medical or nursing care;
( c ) Provides 24-hour nursing service in accordance with Sec. 1861(e)(5) of the Act;
( d ) If it is a U.S. hospital, is licensed, or approved as meeting the standards for licensing, by the State or local licensing agency; and
( e ) If it is a foreign hospital, is licensed, or approved as meeting the standard for licensing, by the appropriate foreign licensing agency, and for purposes of furnishing nonemergency services to U.S. residents, is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), or by a foreign program under standards that CMS finds to be equivalent to those of JCAHO.
[48 FR 12541, Mar. 25, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 33033, Aug. 16, 1985; 51 FR 41338, Nov. 14, 1986; 71 FR 48135, Aug. 18, 2006]