alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 7.7 Appeals. ( a ) Any employee who is aggrieved by a determination made by the head of his bureau or office under this part may obtain a review of the determination by filing an appeal with the General Counsel within 30 days after receiving the notice of the determination complained of.
( b ) Any employee who is aggrieved by a determination made by the General Counsel under this part may obtain a review of the determination by filing a written appeal with the Commissioner of Patents within 30 days after receiving notice of the determination complained of, or within such longer period as the Commissioner may provide. The appeal to the Commissioner shall be processed in accordance with the provisions in the regulations of the Patent Office for an appeal from an agency determination.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DANIEL GEIGER,

Appellant,

v.

TATIANA FRANCIS TURNER,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2649

[April 11, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lorena Mastrarrigo, Judge; L.T. Case No. DVCE23-

006756. 

Russell J. Williams of Williams Hilal Wigand Grande PLLC, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

No answer brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
June 27, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PATRICK KAPTCHINSKIE AND LAURA KAPTCHINSKIE, Appellants

NO. 14-15-01080-CV V.

THE ESTATE OF CHARLES O. KIRCHNER, DECEASED, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed October 9, 2015 in favor of 

appellee, the Estate of Charles O. Kirchner, Deceased—a misnomer for Mira 

Huffman, in her capacity as independent administratrix of Charles Kirchner’s 

estate—was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and 

find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellants Patrick Kaptchinskie and Laura Kaptchinskie jointly and 

severally to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 99-8926.

#### Dougherty *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

#### § 431.1 Purpose.

This part establishes State plan requirements for the designation, organization, and general administrative activities of a State agency responsible for operating the State Medicaid program, directly or through supervision of local administering agencies.
#### Mountz *v.*North Versailles Township, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Township—Hole *in road;*— Question *for jury.*

In an action by a woman against a township to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a fall in a hole in a road, the evidence showed that on one side of the road there was a bank that sloped to a stream several feet below. The bank had in places been worn away by the action of water, and the bed of the road was undermined. At one place where the traveled way was only eight or nine feet wide, there was a hole at the side of the road seven feet deep which had existed there for several weeks. The plaintiff knew of it, and while walking with her daughter on a dark night, tried to avoid it by keeping in the middle of the road. She stepped within eighteen inches of the hole, and the earth gave way under her feet. *Held,*that the case was for the jury and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.

Argued Oct. 23, 1908.

Appeals, Nos. 175 and 176, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1903, No. 212, on verdict for plaintiffs in cases of Lawrence Mountz and Margaret E. Mountz, his wife, v. *164North Versailles Township.

Before Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ford, J.

The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Verdict and judgment for Margaret E. Mountz for $6,000 and for Lawrence Mountz for $3,Q00. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*amongst others was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

*W. B.*Rodgers, with him *Stewart M. Cunningham,*for appellant.

*I. K. Porter,*with him *S. Gr. Porter*and *E. H. Stowe,*for appellees.

January 4, 1909:

Per Curiam,

Margaret E. Mountz, one of the plaintiffs, was injured by falling into a hole at the side of a public road. The main question presented by the appeal is whether a case of negligence on the part of the township was made out, clear of contributory negligence on her part. On one side of the road there ivas a bank that sloped to a stream several feet below. According to the plaintiff’s testimony the bank had in places been worn away by the action of water, and the bed of the road was undermined. At one place where the traveled way was only eight or nine feet wide, there was a hole at the side of the road seven feet deep. This hole had existed for several weeks. The plaintiff knew of it and while walking with her daughter on a dark night, tried to avoid it by keeping in the middle of the road. She stepped within eighteen inches of the hole, and the earth gave way under her foot. The testimony showed gross negligence by the township authorities and the exercise of care by her. She was not proceeding heedlessly in the presence of a known danger. Whether under the circumstances she should have taken greater care was not a question to be decided by the court.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 426.403 Submitting new evidence once an acceptable complaint is filed.

Once an acceptable complaint is filed, the aggrieved party may submit additional new evidence without withdrawing the complaint until the ALJ closes the record.
§ 424.70 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements sections 1815(c) and 1842(b)(6) of the Act, which establish limitations on who may receive payments due a provider or supplier of services or a beneficiary.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart— ( 1 ) Prohibits the assignment, reassignment, or other transfer of the right to Medicare payments except under specified conditions;
( 2 ) Sets forth the sanctions that CMS may impose on a provider or supplier that violates this prohibition, or on a supplier that violates the conditions to which it agreed in accepting assignment from the individual; and
( 3 ) Specifies the conditions for payment under court-ordered assignments or reassignments.
Letter Agreement dated February 10, 2009



 Exhibit 10.24 
 

 
 February 10, 2009 
 Jeffrey Von Deylen 
 [                                    ] 
 [                                    ] 
 Dear Jeff: 
 This letter, once countersigned by both parties, is effective
retroactive to October 16, 2008, amends your employment agreement dated October 1, 2006, as amended on December 4, 2008, (“Agreement”), and confirms your appointment as SVP Global Operations and Client Services in addition
to your existing role as CFO, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to section 3(a) of your Agreement. In this new capacity you shall have the additional responsibilities for Operations and Global Client Services. 
 Your new Base Salary pursuant to section 4(a) of the Agreement shall be $370,000 per annum. You further agree that any appointment of a new CFO by SAVVIS in the future
and the removal of those responsibilities and title from you in the event SAVVIS were to so elect, or your removal from the Board of Directors, shall not be Good Reason pursuant to your Agreement. All other terms of your Employment Agreement remain
unchanged. 
 If you have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Phil. Please acknowledge your agreement
by signing below and returning a copy to my attention. 
 Sincerely, 
  

							
	 /s/ Mary Ann Altergott
	  		  		  	
	Mary Ann Altergott	  		  		  	
	Senior Vice President	  		  		  	
	Corporate Services	  		  		  	
				
	 /s/ Jeffrey Von Deylen
	  		  	 2/12/2009
	  	
	Jeffrey Von Deylen	  		  	Date	  	

  

					
	Savvis	 	 	 	    1 Savvis Parkway, Town & Country, MO 63017
	www.savvis.net    	 	 	 	    Office: 314.628.7830 Fax: 888.203.7405
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2213]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP08-591-000]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice Deferring Technical Conference Date

January 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the technical conference scheduled in the above-
captioned proceeding for January 28, 2009 is cancelled and will be 
rescheduled at a later date. For further information please contact 
Anna Fernandez at (202) 502-6682 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84c5eaeae5aac2e1f6eae5eae0e1fec4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02436c6c632c4467706c636c66677842646770612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2213 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21519]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that a planning meeting of the Vermont Advisory 
Committee will convene at 11 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2009, at the 
Community College of Vermont, 145 Billings Farm Road, White River 
Junction, Vermont. The purpose of the planning meeting is to plan 
future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by October 19, 2009. 
The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., 
Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to email their 
comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda 
Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9acbba689bcbaaaaabbe7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2742554867525444445509404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, September 2, 2009.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E9-21519 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VICTOR GUZMAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1716

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 5, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge.

A.R. Mander, III, of Mander Law Group, 

Dade City, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.676 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) The hearing is open to the parties and to the public.
( b ) The hearing officer inquires fully into all the matters at issue and receives in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents that are relevant and material.
( c ) The hearing officer provides the parties an opportunity to enter any objection to the inclusion of any document.
( d ) The MA organization bears the burden of going forward and must first present evidence and argument before CMS presents its evidence and argument.
[63 FR 35113, June 26, 1998, as amended at 75 FR 19813, Apr. 15, 2010]
§ 417.528 Payment when Medicare is not primary payer. ( a ) *Limits on payments and charges.* ( 1 ) CMS may not pay for services to the extent that Medicare is not the primary payer under section 1862(b) of the Act and part 411 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The circumstances under which an HMO or CMP may charge, or authorize a provider to charge, for covered Medicare services for which Medicare is not the primary payer are stated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Charge to other insurers or the enrollee.* If a Medicare enrollee receives from an HMO or CMP covered services that are also covered under State or Federal worker's compensation, automobile medical, or any no-fault insurance, or any liability insurance policy or plan, including a self-insured plan, the HMO or CMP may charge, or authorize a provider that furnished the service to charge— ( 1 ) The insurance carrier, employer, or other entity that is liable to pay for these services; or
( 2 ) The Medicare enrollee, to the extent that he or she has been paid by the carrier, employer, or other entity.
( c ) *Charge to group health plans (GHPs) or large group health plans (LGHPs).* An HMO or CMP may charge a GHP or LGHP for covered services it furnished to a Medicare enrollee and may charge the Medicare enrollee to the extent that he or she has been paid by the GHP or LGHP for these covered services if— ( 1 ) The Medicare enrollee is covered under the plan; and
( 2 ) Under section 1862(b) of the Act, CMS is precluded from paying for the covered services .
( d ) *Responsibilities of HMO or CMP.* An HMO or CMP must— ( 1 ) Identify payers that are primary to Medicare under section 1862(b) of the Act;
( 2 ) Determine the amounts payable by these payers; and
( 3 ) Coordinate the benefits of its Medicare enrollees with these payers.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38080, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 46229, Sept. 6, 1995]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Norman CARROLL v. Warden Frank BLACKBURN, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 80-KH-2382.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Norman Carroll, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Jefferson. Nos. 741643, 741704 and 75245.

Granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered.

MARCUS, BLANCHE and WATSON, JJ., dissent.
Order entered February 8, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01565
- CR
DOMINIC RAUL SANCHEZ , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 10
- 53887
- I 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s motion to abate. Appellant asserts the reporter’s record is missing a transcript of a December 10, 2010 hearing that culminated in his receiving deferred adjudication and ten years’ community service. Appellant asserts the official court reporter for Criminal District Court No. 2 did not record the hearing and does not know who recorded such hearing. We GRANT appellant’s motion to abate.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearin g to determine: (1) if the hearing held on December 10, 2010 was recorded; (2) if so recorded, by whom and can a record of the hearing be prepared; (3) if not, was appellant at fault for the record not being prepared for the hearing; and (4) whether the pa rties can agree on a substituted reporter’s record.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this court within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. This appeal is ABA TED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
###### 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.

#### § 414.1 Basis and scope.

This part implements the following provisions of the Act:

1802—Rules for private contracts by Medicare beneficiaries.

1833—Rules for payment for most Part B services.

1834(a) and (h)—Amounts and frequency of payments for durable medical equipment and for prosthetic devices and orthotics and prosthetics.

1834(l)—Establishment of a fee schedule for ambulance services.

1834(m)—Rules for Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.

1834A—Improving policies for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests

1842(o)—Rules for payment of certain drugs and biologicals.

1847(a) and (b)—Competitive bidding for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).

1848—Fee schedule for physician services.

1881(b)—Rules for payment for services to ESRD beneficiaries.

1887—Payment of charges for physician services to patients in providers.

[67 FR 9132, Feb. 27, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 1116, Jan. 7, 2004; 71 FR 48409, Aug. 18, 2006; 81 FR 41098, June 23, 2016]
§ 412.620 Patient classification system. ( a ) *Classification methodology.* ( 1 ) A patient classification system is used to classify patients in inpatient rehabilitation facilities into mutually exclusive case-mix groups.
( 2 ) For purposes of this subpart, case-mix groups are classes of Medicare patient discharges by functional-related groups that are based on a patient's impairment, age, comorbidities, functional capabilities, and other factors that may improve the ability of the functional-related groups to estimate variations in resource use.
( 3 ) Data from admission assessments under § 412.610(c)(1) are used to classify a Medicare patient into an appropriate case-mix group.
( 4 ) Data from the discharge assessment under § 412.610(c)(2) are used to determine the weighting factors under paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( b ) *Weighting factors* — ( 1 ) *General.* An appropriate weight is assigned to each case-mix group that measures the relative difference in facility resource intensity among the various case-mix groups.
( 2 ) *Short-stay outliers.* We will determine a weighting factor or factors for patients that are discharged and not transferred (as defined in § 412.602) within a number of days from admission as specified by us.
( 3 ) *Patients who expire.* We will determine a weighting factor or factors for patients who expire within a number of days from admission as specified by us.
( 4 ) *Comorbidities.* We will determine a weighting factor or factors to account for the presence of a comorbidity, as defined in § 412.602, that is relevant to resource use in the classification system.
( c ) *Revision of case-mix group classifications and weighting factors.* We may periodically adjust the case-mix groups and weighting factors to reflect changes in— ( 1 ) Treatment patterns;
( 2 ) Technology;
( 3 ) Number of discharges; and
( 4 ) Other factors affecting the relative use of resources.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Herbert G. MARTIN.

No. 65749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Herbert G. Martin, applying for writs of mandamus and certiorari. Parish of Orleans. No. 239-229.

Denied.
|   | By:    | /s/ Chandler      Bigelow |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Chandler      Bigelow          |   |
|   |   | Senior      Vice President and |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer   |   |
|   |   |                           |   |
|   |   |                           |   |
|   |   | November      10, 2008         |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7127

DE’SHON PITT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; T. YATES; BETTY DAVIS; B.

J. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator; AWO HARVEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-02-576-7)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

De’shon Pitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

De’shon Pitt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Because Pitt may cure any deficiency by

filing an amended complaint, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, because the judgment is not a final, appealable

order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument,

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 421.126 Termination of agreements. ( a ) *Termination by intermediary.* An intermediary may terminate its agreement at any time by— ( 1 ) Giving written notice of its intention to CMS and to the providers it services at least 180 days before its intended termination date; and
( 2 ) Giving public notice of its intention by publishing a statement of the effective date of termination at least 60 days before that date. Publication must be in a newspaper of general circulation in each community served by the intermediary.
( b ) *Termination by the Secretary, and right of appeal.* ( 1 ) The Secretary may terminate an agreement if— ( i ) The intermediary fails to comply with the requirements of this subpart;
( ii ) The intermediary fails to meet the criteria or standards specified in §§ 421.120 and 421.122; or
( iii ) CMS has reassigned, under § 421.114 or § 421.116, all of the providers assigned to the intermediary.
( 2 ) If the Secretary decides to terminate an agreement, he or she will offer the intermediary an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with § 421.128.
( 3 ) If the intermediary does not request a hearing, or if the hearing decision affirms the Secretary's decision, the Secretary will provide reasonable notice of the effective date of termination to— ( i ) The intermediary;
( ii ) The providers served by the intermediary; and
( iii ) The general public.
( 4 ) The providers served by the intermediary will be given the opportunity to nominate another intermediary, in accordance with § 421.104.