alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.53 Basis for conditional Medicare payment in no-fault cases. ( a ) A conditional Medicare payment may be made in no-fault cases under either of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The beneficiary has filed a proper claim for no-fault insurance benefits but the intermediary or carrier determines that the no-fault insurer will not pay promptly for any reason other than the circumstances described in § 411.32(a)(1). This includes cases in which the no-fault insurance carrier has denied the claim.
( 2 ) The beneficiary, because of physical or mental incapacity, failed to meet a claim-filing requirement stipulated in the policy.
( b ) Any conditional payment that CMS makes is conditioned on reimbursement to CMS in accordance with subpart B of this part.
[71 FR 9470, Feb. 24, 2006]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Lawrence DAVIS v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 80-K-1427.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1980.

In re Lawrence Davis, applying for remedial writ. Parish of Ascension. No. 27521.

Denied.
# Peru

182 items

        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Peru	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Release of the 2023 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction	  May 2, 2023 
        -    TIAS  		Peru (23-427) – Agreement Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions	  April 27, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Helping Countries Transition from Soviet Legacy to Democratic Governance	  April 7, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Peru	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 1, 2023	  Ned PriceMarch 1, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Peru	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 22, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 22, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Peruvian Foreign Minister Gervasi	  February 1, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 27, 2023	  Vedant PatelJanuary 27, 2023Washington, D.C.  

previous page1…34567…19next page

Back to Top
# C_2006086EN.01002202.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/22

---

Action brought on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/06)

(2006/C 86/44)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing Directive 2003/4/EC expired on 14 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 41, p. 26

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Created by Section 906

of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned officer of FileNet Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)           the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

 (ii)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  March 10, 2006
| */s/ Lee D. Roberts*** |
|------------------------|

Lee D. Roberts 

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer
#### In re UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION.

No. 85-1205.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sept. 2, 1986.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK, SCALIA, STARR, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s Suggestion for Rehearing *En Banc*has been transmitted to the full Court. At least a majority of the judges of the Court in regular active service have voted in favor of the suggestion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that petitioner’s Suggestion for Rehearing *En Banc*is granted, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*on its own motion, that the opinion of the Court filed on June 17, 1986, 793 F.2d 338, be, and the same hereby is, vacated.

A future order will govern the course of further proceedings.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.0

AVANIR Pharmaceuticals
San Diego, California

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of AVANIR Pharmaceuticals and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and
the related consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the
three-month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report
dated February 13, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-71276, 33-94370,
333-83089, 333-84183, 333-38094 and 333-108716 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement Nos. 33-49082, 33-76094, 333-24549, 333-76641, 333-77925, 333-31442,
333-32776, 333-34958, 333-35934, 333-107820 and 333-111680 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California
February 13, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

Editorial Note on Subpart L of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart L of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35106, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.552 Novation agreement requirements. ( a ) *Conditions for CMS approval of a novation agreement.* CMS approves a novation agreement if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) *Advance notification.* The MA organization notifies CMS at least 60 days before the date of the proposed change of ownership. The MA organization also provides CMS with updated financial information and a discussion of the financial and solvency impact of the change of ownership on the surviving organization.
( 2 ) *Advance submittal of agreement.* The MA organization submits to CMS, at least 30 days before the proposed change of ownership date, three signed copies of the novation agreement containing the provisions specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and one copy of other relevant documents required by CMS.
( 3 ) *CMS's determination.* CMS determines that— ( i ) The proposed new owner is in fact a successor in interest to the contract;
( ii ) Recognition of the new owner as a successor in interest to the contract is in the best interest of the Medicare program; and
( iii ) The successor organization meets the requirements to qualify as an MA organization under subpart K of this part.
( b ) *Provisions of a novation agreement* — ( 1 ) *Assumption of contract obligations.* The new owner must assume all obligations under the contract.
( 2 ) *Waiver of right to reimbursement.* The previous owner must waive its rights to reimbursement for covered services furnished during the rest of the current contract period.
( 3 ) *Guarantee of performance.* ( i ) The previous owner must guarantee performance of the contract by the new owner during the contract period; or
( ii ) The new owner must post a performance bond that is satisfactory to CMS.
( 4 ) *Records access.* The previous owner must agree to make its books and records and other necessary information available to the new owner and to CMS to permit an accurate determination of costs for the final settlement of the contract period.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 8853, Mar. 1, 1991; 58 FR 38079, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45681, Sept. 1, 1995. Redesignated and amended at 63 FR 35067, 35106, June 26, 1998; 70 FR 52027, Sept. 1, 2005]
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| */s/                Eric Yu*                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Name:                   Eric Yu                                                                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
| Title:     Chief                Financial Officer      Chief                Accounting Officer Date:                     July 15, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 90 -C V

______________________________
IN T H E IN T E R E S T O F A
. C
. M
. , A C H ILD

On Appea l from the 102nd Judi cial District Court

Red River County , Texas Trial Court No. CV01948

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Appellant, Da

nny Martin, filed a notice of appe al September 24, 2009, from the tria l court’s “Or der Esta

blishing the Pare nt-Child R elationship.” That or der w as sig ned September 4, 2009. Mart in a lso fi le d a

mot ion fo r n e w tri a l Se pte mbe r 2 4, 20 09 . T he tr ia l c ourt su bs equ ent ly g rante d that motion November 20, 2009. Gene rally , appea ls may

be take n only from final judgme nts. Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a motion for new tria l is gra

nted, the ca se is reinstated on the docket of the trial court a

nd will stand for trial the same as thoug h no trial had be en conduc ted. W ilk ins v . M e tho dis t H

e alt h Ca re Sy s. , 160 S.W .3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005)
. Thus, when the tr ial court grant s a m ot io n fo r new tr ial , th e tr ial cou rt "ess ent ial ly wi pes th e sl ate cle an and st art s o ver. " Id. Her e, the tr ia l c o u rt g r an te d M arti n ’ s mo ti o nf

o r n e w tr ia l w it

h in th e p e r io d

o f it s p le n ar y p o w er. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 32 9b (d ), (e ); Thomas v. Oldham , 895 S.W .2d 352, 356 (Tex. 1995). Ther efor e, the issues prese nted in this appeal a re r ender ed moot and this Court lacks appe llate jurisdiction. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Dec ember 22, 2009 Date D ecide d: Dec ember 23, 2009
§ 418.25 Admission to hospice care. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 64272 , Aug. 6, 2024.
( a ) The hospice admits a patient only on the recommendation of the medical director in consultation with, or with input from, the patient's attending physician (if any).
( b ) In reaching a decision to certify that the patient is terminally ill, the hospice medical director must consider at least the following information: ( 1 ) Diagnosis of the terminal condition of the patient.
( 2 ) Other health conditions, whether related or unrelated to the terminal condition.
( 3 ) Current clinically relevant information supporting all diagnoses.
[70 FR 70547, Nov. 22, 2005]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3221

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit the imposition of

certain additional fees on consumers in connection with any electronic

fund transfer which is initiated by the consumer from an electronic

terminal operated by a person other than the financial institution holding

the consumer’s account and which utilizes a national or regional communication network.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1996

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit

the imposition of certain additional fees on consumers

in connection with any electronic fund transfer which

is initiated by the consumer from an electronic terminal

operated by a person other than the financial institution

holding the consumer’s account and which utilizes a national or regional communication network.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3221 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electronic Fund

3 Transfer Fees Act of 1996’’.

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN FEES.

5 The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693

6 et seq.) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920,

8 and 921 as sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respec9 tively; and

10 (2) by inserting after section 917 the following

11 new section:

12 ‘‘SEC. 918. FEES.

13 ‘‘In the case of any electronic fund transfer which—

14 ‘‘(1) is initiated by a consumer from an elec15 tronic terminal operated by a person other than the

16 financial institution holding the account of the

17 consumer; and

18 ‘‘(2) utilizes a national or regional communica19 tion network to effect the transaction between such

20 person and the financial institution holding the ac21 count of the consumer,

22 no fee may be imposed on the consumer with respect to

23 such transaction by the person operating the electronic

24 terminal at which the transfer is initiated.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22015]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, September 11, 2009, 11 a.m. 
to September 11, 2009, 12 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 31, 2009, 74 FR 44859.
    The meeting will be held September 14, 2009, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 
p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22015 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Cook *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided April 11, 1911.

55 South. 269.)

*Intoxicating Liquors; Evidence; Sufficiency.-*— The evidence in this case stated and examined and held insufficient to show that the defendant had such connection with the alleged transaction as to render him guilty of violation of the prohibition law.

*225Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

From a conviction for violating tbe prohibition law William Cook appeals.

Beversed and remanded.

Leith & Gunn, and Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellant.

The court should have sustained defendant’s demurrer to the *indictment.*— Marks *v. The State,*48 So. 864. Counsel discuss assignments of error relative to evidence, but without citation of authority. They insist that under the evidence the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge, but cite no authority in support of their contention.

Bobert C. Brickell, Attorney General, for the State.

No brief came to the Beporter.

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried under an indictment in the Walker county law and equity court, and convicted of violating the prohibition law.

The bill, of exceptions sets out the testimony of one state’s witness, Steve Northcutt, and contains the further statement that another witness (naming him) testified substantially the same as the witness whose testimony is set out. It appears from the evidence of the state’s witness that he bought some.drinks put up in bottles, which resembled beer and had a stimulating effect like beer, from one Jack Martin, in a store at Nauvoo, in Walker county, where canned goods, cigars, cold drinks, etc., were sold. The defendant was not shown to have been present a.t the time of the transaction, nor connected with the occurrence in any way, except that on some other indefinite occasion he had been selling goods in the store, and a license in the place ivas issued to a W. M. Cook. It was not shown that the defendant, William Cook, was the person, W. M. Cook, *226named in the license, nor for what purpose the license was issued. Martin was not shown to have been defendant’s partner, clerk, or agent, or tO' have had any connection with the defendant whatever.

The defendant introduced no testimony, and asked the trial court in writing to charge the jury, if they believed the evidence, to find the defendant not guilty. The court refused to give the charge, and the defendant excepted. The defendant was clearly entitled to the general affirmative charge in his behalf, as requested, and for the manifest error of the court the case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.
#### David J. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-373.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 14, 1975.

David J. Smith, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defend*34ant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Max & Erma's Restaurants,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 310, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William C. Niegsch, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial 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:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date: January 17, 2006


                                        /s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William C. Niegsch, Jr.
                                        Executive Vice President;
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 20, 2015

Scott S. Harris

Clerk ofthe Court

(202)479-3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Steven LaWayne Nelson

v. Texas

No. 15-5265

(Your No. AP-76,924)

RECEIVED IN

courtop rmmk\ appenj

JUL 2 4 W

Abe!Acosta,Clerk

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on July

13, 2015 and placed on the docket July 20, 2015 as No. 15-5265.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by

Redmond K. Barnes

Case Analyst

RECEIVED IN

JUL ? 4 2015