alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Uranium-bearing coal in the central part of the Great Divide Basin

By: G. N. Pipiringos

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1099A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Uranium-bearing coal in the central part of the Great Divide Basin, Sweetwater County, Wyoming(1956)                                    

- 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.
#### Daniel G. DIEFENDERFER, Jr. et al. v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 66881.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of West Baton Rouge. 383 So.2d 1032.

Granted.
§ 419.45 Payment and copayment reduction for devices replaced without cost or when full or partial credit is received. ( a ) *General rule.* CMS reduces the amount of payment for an implanted device made under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system in accordance with § 419.66 for which CMS determines that a significant portion of the payment is attributable to the cost of an implanted device, when one of the following situations occur: ( 1 ) The device is replaced without cost to the provider or the beneficiary;
( 2 ) The provider receives full credit for the cost of a replaced device; or
( 3 ) The provider receives partial credit for the cost of a replaced device but only where the amount of the device credit is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the cost of the new replacement device being implanted.
( b ) *Amount of reduction to the APC payment.* ( 1 ) The amount of the reduction to the APC payment made under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section is calculated as the lesser of the device offset amount that would be applied if the device implanted during a procedure assigned to the APC had transitional pass-through status under § 419.66 or the amount of the credit described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) The amount of the reduction to the APC payment made under paragraph (a)(3) of this section is calculated as the lesser of the device offset amount that would be applied if the device implanted during a procedure assigned to the APC had transitional pass-through status under § 419.66 or the amount of the credit described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
( c ) *Amount of beneficiary copayment.* The beneficiary copayment is calculated based on the APC payment after application of the reduction under paragraph (b) of this section.
[71 FR 68228, Nov. 24, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 66933, Nov. 27, 2007; 85 FR 86302, Dec. 29, 2020]
§ 590.511 Official business of certain international organizations and entities. All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized: ( a ) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
( b ) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
( c ) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing; and
( d ) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
#### ROGER PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. LON WORTH CROW REALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 78-1940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1979.

*700Knight, Kincaid, Poucher & Harris and Marshall W. Liptak, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Lyons & Smith and Gary V. Smith, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment ordering the appellant Koger Properties, Inc., to pay certain real estate brokerage commissions to the appellee Lon Worth Crow Realty Company. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In our view, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether “the tenant terminate[d] the subject lease” as such terms are used in the brokerage agreement [thereby terminating the brokerage commissions due thereunder] when the appellant and the tenant herein together terminated the subject lease. Stated differently, we find that an ambiguity exists in the above quoted terms of the brokerage agreement for which the taking of testimony is necessary to determine whether such terms were intended by the parties to cover the lease termination accomplished in this case. If such was the intent of the parties, no brokerage commissions are due under the brokerage agreement; if such was not so intended, the opposite is true and the brokerage commissions sought herein are due under the brokerage agreement.

The final summary judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. *Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. In-Sink-Erator,*252 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Commercial Trading Co. v. Zero Food Storage, Inc.,*199 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).

Reversed and remanded.
Amendment to the Colgate-Palmolive Company 2005 Employee Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10-S(f) 
  

 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY 
 2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN 
  
 AMENDMENT, dated as of February 26, 2009, to the Colgate-Palmolive Company 2005 Employee Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Plan currently provides that Incentive Stock Options (as defined in the
Plan) shall have an exercise period of no more than 10 years from the date of grant (a “10-year maximum term”), but does not provide a maximum term for other awards granted under the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company desires to apply a 10-year maximum
term to all future awards granted under the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that Section 5(c)(2) of the Plan be and hereby is amended so that as amended it shall read in full as follows: 
  
 Term. The term of each Stock Option and each Stock Appreciation Right shall be fixed by the Committee, but no Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right shall be
exercisable more than 10 years after the date such Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right is granted. 
  
 ; and be it further 
  
 RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolution shall not (i) limit the authority of the Personnel and Organization Committee to determine the terms and conditions
of awards granted under the Plan, including the applicable exercise period, which may be less than ten years, or (ii) modify awards previously granted under the Plan; and be it further 
  
 RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company be, and they hereby are, jointly and
severally, authorized and empowered to take any and all actions, and to execute any and all agreements, documents and instruments, as they in their discretion may deem necessary or appropriate to effectuate the foregoing resolutions.
No. 00-6041.

No. 00-6102.

No. 00-6211.

#### In re Brown; In re Avalos; and In re Veasey.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
§ 417.556 Apportionment: Provider services furnished by the HMO or CMP through arrangements with others. The Medicare share of the cost of covered services furnished to Medicare enrollees through arrangements with providers other than those specified in § 417.554 must be determined as follows: ( a ) The Medicare share must be based on the cost the HMO or CMP pays the provider under their arrangement, to the extent that cost is reasonable and within the limits established by §§ 417.534 through 417.548.
( b ) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, apportionment must be on the same approved basis that is used by the provider for Medicare beneficiaries who are not Medicare enrollees of the HMO or CMP, subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in § 417.548.
( c ) If, because of the special nature or terms of the HMO's or CMP's arrangement with the provider, apportionment on the basis specified in paragraph (b) of this section would result in Medicare's bearing the costs of furnishing services to individuals other than the HMO's or CMP's Medicare enrollees, apportionment must be on another basis that is approved by CMS and that will ensure that Medicare does not pay any of the cost of furnishing services to individuals who are not Medicare enrollees of the HMO or CMP.
( d ) If the HMO or CMP elects to have providers reimbursed by the HMO's or CMP's Medicare intermediary, the Medicare share is the amount the intermediary paid the provider.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

99–879 WASHINGTON : 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–126 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TEXAS FINAL INTEGRATED 

FEASIBILITY REPORT—ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL 

WORKS, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

TRANSMITTING

THE DEPARTMENT’S BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TEXAS FINAL INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT—ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR JULY 2014. 

APRIL 21, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and ordered to be printed 

01:48 Apr 26 2016 Jkt 099879 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HD126PL XXX HD126PL

LLL
LY
Y
YL
YLL
YLLL
L[
[
[L
[LL
[LLL
[LY
[Y
[YL
[YLL
[YLLL
[L[
[[
[[L
[[LL
[[LLL
[[LY
[[Y
[[YL
[[YLL
[[YLLL
[[L[
[[[
[[[L
[[[LL
[[[LLL
[[[LY
[[[Y























































































































































151
# C_2006131EN.01002701.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-310/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/95/EC - General product safety - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 131/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ L 11, p. 4)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243 of 01.10.2005.

1

---
§ 423.150 Scope. This subpart sets forth the requirements relating to the following: ( a ) Drug utilization management programs, quality assurance measures and systems, and MTM programs for Part D sponsors.
( b ) Appropriate dispensing of prescription drugs in long-term care facilities under PDPs and MA-PD plans.
( c ) Consumer satisfaction surveys of Part D plans.
( d ) Electronic prescription drug programs for prescribers, dispensers, and Part D sponsors.
( e ) Quality improvement organization (QIO) activities.
( f ) Compliance deemed on the basis of accreditation.
( g ) Accreditation organizations.
( h ) Procedures for the approval of accreditation organizations as a basis for deeming compliance.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 67593, Nov. 7, 2005; 76 FR 21573, Apr. 15, 2011; 89 FR 30834, Apr. 23, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.701 Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart: *Agency* means the State agency responsible for licensing individual practitioners under the State's healing arts licensing act.
*Board* means an appointed State board established to carry out a State program for licensing administrators of nursing homes, in a State that does not have a healing arts licensing act or an agency as defined in this section.
*Licensed* means certified by a State agency or board as meeting all of the requirements for a licensed nursing home administrator specified in this subpart.
*Nursing home* means any institution, facility, or distinct part of a hospital that is licensed or formally recognized as meeting nursing home standards established under State law, or that is determined under § 431.704 to be included under the requirements of this subpart. The term does not include— ( a ) A religious nonmedical institution as defined in § 440.170(b) of this chapter; or
( b ) A distinct part of a hospital, if the hospital meets the definition in § 440.10 or § 440.140 of this subchapter, and the distinct part is not licensed separately or formally approved as a nursing home by the State even though it is designated or certified as a skilled nursing facility.
*Nursing home administrator* means any person who is in charge of the general administration of a nursing home whether or not the person— ( a ) Has an ownership interest in the home; or
( b ) Shares his functions and duties with one or more other persons.
[43 FR 45188, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 64 FR 67052, Nov. 30, 1999]
#### Clara JONES, Appellant, v. Elliott E. WILSON and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 73-1435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby  given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and  552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Developmental Biology Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         October 5-6, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20005.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute  of Child Health And Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485,                          *changn@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan  Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 1, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-21776 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# C_2006010EN.01002502.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/25

---

Action brought on 13 October 2005 — Chatziioannidou v Commission

(Case T-387/05)

(2006/C 10/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 8 July 2005 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against a decision regarding the transfer of her pension rights to the Community scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 8 July 2005 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against a decision regarding the transfer of her pension rights to the Community scheme;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, applied for the transfer of her pension rights, acquired in Greece before she took up her post at the Commission, to the Community scheme. By her action, she criticises the method of calculation of the number of annuities to be taken into account according to the Community pension scheme, on the basis of the capital sum transferred. Specifically, the applicant submits that, before the introduction of the euro, the Commission converted the capital sum transferred in a currency other than the Belgian Franc not on the basis of the rate applicable on the date of calculation but at an average exchange rate which was intended to reflect the currency fluctuations over the period of payment of the contributions. However, following the transitional period for the definitive introduction of the euro, that is to say from 1 January 2002, the Commission no longer uses that method of calculation but takes into account the amount in euro transferred by the national funds.

The applicant states that the discontinuation of the average exchange rate method leads, in her case, to a considerable reduction in the number of annuities with which she was credited. On that basis, she claims breach of Council Regulation No 1103/97, which provides that the introduction of the euro is not to have the effect of altering any term of a legal instrument. She also claims breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since, depending on whether the transfer request was made before or after the introduction of the euro, officials in exactly the same position are not awarded the same number of annuities under the Community scheme.

---
§ 435.150 Former foster care children. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX) of the Act.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency must provide Medicaid to individuals who: ( 1 ) Are under age 26;
( 2 ) Are not eligible and enrolled for mandatory coverage under §§ 435.110 through 435.118 or §§ 435.120 through 435.145; and
( 3 ) Were in foster care under the responsibility of the State or a Tribe within the State and enrolled in Medicaid under the State's Medicaid State plan or under a section 1115 demonstration project upon attaining: ( i ) Age 18; or
( ii ) A higher age at which the State's or such Tribe's foster care assistance ends under title IV-E of the Act.
( c ) *Options.* At the State option, the agency may provide Medicaid to individuals who meet the requirements at paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, were in foster care under the responsibility of the State or Tribe within the State upon attaining either age described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, and were: ( 1 ) Enrolled in Medicaid under the State's Medicaid State plan or under a section 1115 demonstration project at some time during the period in foster care during which the individual attained such age; or
( 2 ) Placed by the State or Tribe in another State and, while in such placement, were enrolled in the other State's Medicaid State plan or under a section 1115 demonstration project: ( i ) Upon attaining either age described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section; or
( ii ) At state option, at some time during the period in foster care during which the individual attained such age.
[81 FR 86451, Nov. 30, 2016]