alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46593-46594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science.

ACTION: Notice; amendment.

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

SUMMARY: A notice was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 
August 26, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 164, to announce that a meeting of the 
National Vaccine Advisory Committee will be held on September 15 and 
16, 2009. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting proceedings 
also will be Webcast; the Webcast can be viewed at http://videocast.nih.gov.

[[Page 46594]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Andrea Krull, Public Health 
Advisor, National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and 
Human Services, Room 715H Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; Fax: (202) 
260-1165: e-mail; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b554d4b547b535348155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d130b0d123d15150e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Bruce Gellin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Director, National Vaccine 
Program Office.
[FR Doc. E9-21750 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-44-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Charles WHITE, Jr., et al. v. Dr. W. R. EDISON.

No. 63150.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Dr. W. R. Edison, applying for writ of certiorari to the First Circuit Court *916of Appeal. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 361 So.2d 1292.

Writ denied.
# C_2006060EN.01001203.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/12

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 1 December 2005

in Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck in Autohaus Ostermann GmbH v VAV Versicherungs AG (1)

1

(Article 104(3) second subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Automobile civil liability insurance - Directive 2000/26/EC - Period for insurance undertaking to assess compensation claims)

(2006/C 60/26)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-447/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht Innsbruck, (Austria), made by decision of 30 September 2004, received at the Court on 27 October 2004, in the proceedings between Autohaus Ostermann GmbH and VAV Versicherungs AG — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis and J. Klučka,, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (fourth motor insurance Directive) is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule from allowing an injured party to bring a legal action against the insurance undertaking within the three-month period set down by that provision, after the setting of a reasonable period for payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.102 Basic prohibitions and requirements. ( a ) *ESRD.* ( 1 ) A group health plan of any size— ( i ) May not take into account the ESRD-based Medicare eligibility or entitlement of any individual who is covered or seeks to be covered under the plan; and
( ii ) May not differentiate in the benefits it provides between individuals with ESRD and other individuals covered under the plan, on the basis of the existence of ESRD, or the need for dialysis, or in any other manner.
( 2 ) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section do not prohibit a plan from paying benefits secondary to Medicare after the first 18 months of ESRD-based eligibility or entitlement.
( b ) *Age.* A GHP of an employer or employee organization of at least 20 employees— ( 1 ) May not take into account the age-based Medicare entitlement of an individual or spouse age 65 or older who is covered (or seeks to be covered) under the plan by virtue of current employment status; and
( 2 ) Must provide, to employees age 65 or older and to spouses age 65 or older of employees of any age, the same benefits under the same conditions as it provides to employees and spouses under age 65.
( c ) *Disability.* A GHP of an employer or employee organization of at least 100 employees may not take into account the disability-based Medicare entitlement of any individual who is covered (or seeks to be covered) under the plan by virtue of current employment status.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-2179 

LINNEA GARCIA-TATUPU, 

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN; 

NFL PLAYER SUPPLEMENTAL DISABILITY PLAN, 

Defendants, Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Lynch, Selya, and Lipez, 

Circuit Judges. 

Edward J. McCormick, III, with whom McCormick & Maitland was 

on brief, for appellant. 

Michael L. Junk, with whom Groom Law Group, Grace V.B. Garcia, 

and Morrison Mahoney LLP were on brief, for appellees. 

January 14, 2019 
- 2 - 

Per Curiam. We have carefully considered the parties' 

briefs and the record on appeal and conclude that the district 

court's judgment should be affirmed essentially for the reasons 

articulated by the district court and argued by appellees. 

In summary, our de novo review of the pertinent state 

court domestic relations orders, in light of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, and 

the Tatupus' marital separation agreement, demonstrates that the 

orders impermissibly sought to "require the [NFL retirement] plan 

to provide increased benefits." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii). 

Appellant has provided us with no legal authority to support her 

contention that these nunc pro tunc, postmortem orders should be 

treated as Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") under 

ERISA. Unlike in Files v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478 

(3d Cir. 2005), the primary case cited by appellant, she is not 

"seek[ing] to enforce an interest created prior to [her exhusband]'s death," id. at 489, but is instead attempting to rewrite 

the separation agreement to posthumously create new interests in 

his retirement benefits. 

Given this disposition, we do not opine upon the 

circumstances in which nunc pro tunc state court domestic relations 

orders entered after the death of a plan beneficiary may be treated 

as QDROs. We merely hold that, on the specific facts of this case 

-- in particular, the language of the separation agreement and the 
- 3 - 

status of Mr. Tatupu's election and receipt of benefits at the 

time of his death -- the domestic relations orders at issue may 

not be so treated. 

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Rule 27.0(c).
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C., SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|

|   | AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | BY /s/ Frank West                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Frank West               |
|   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |  Date:  May 9, 2011        |

----
#### Emma Jean Shepard SOKOLL v. HUMPHREY, LUTZ & SMITH, a partnership.

Civ. 1607-X.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 6, 1980.

BRADLEY, Judge.

The prior opinion of this court has been affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama, 380 So.2d 845. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the supreme court’s opinion of January 11, 1980, this cause is now affirmed insofar as finding that the attorney was not liable for statutory penalties and insofar as the attorney is entitled to reasonable and necessary expenses of litigation. Further, this cause is reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama insofar as finding the attorney was liable for interest.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.
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.

§ 414.61 Payment for anesthesia services furnished by a teaching CRNA. ( a ) *Basis for payment.* Beginning January 1, 2010, anesthesia services furnished by a teaching CRNA may be paid under one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) The teaching CRNA, who is not under medical direction of a physician, is present with the student nurse anesthetist for the pre and post anesthesia services included in the anesthesia base units payment and is continuously present during anesthesia time in a single case with a student nurse anesthetist.
( 2 ) The teaching CRNA, who is not under the medical direction of a physician, is involved with two concurrent anesthesia cases with student nurse anesthetists. The teaching CRNA must be present with the student nurse anesthetist for the pre and post anesthesia services included in the anesthesia base unit. For the anesthesia time of the two concurrent cases, the teaching CRNA can only be involved with those two concurrent cases and may not perform services for other patients.
( b ) *Level of payment.* The allowance for the service of the teaching CRNA, furnished under paragraph (a) of this section, is determined in the same way as for a physician who personally performs the anesthesia service alone as specified in § 414.46(c) of this subpart.
[74 FR 62006, Nov. 25, 2009]
§ 412.252 Applications. ( a ) *By one hospital.* An individual prospective payment system hospital seeking redesignation to a different rural or urban area has the right to submit an application to the MGCRB.
( b ) *By a group of hospitals.* A group of hospitals has the right to submit an application to the MGCRB requesting redesignation of all prospective payment hospitals in a county if all prospective payment hospitals located in a county agree to the request.
[55 FR 36766, Sept. 6, 1990, as amended at 69 FR 49250, Aug. 11, 2004]
# C_2006096EN.01002701.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Action brought on 20 February 2006 — Elini N.V. v OHIM

(Case T -67/06)

(2006/C 96/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Elini N.V. (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and S. Tilsley, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rolex. S.A (Geneva, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | review and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2005 (Case R-725/2004-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

review and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2005 (Case R-725/2004-4);

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Elini N.V.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Elini’ for goods in class 14 (jewellery; watches; watch straps, watch glasses, watch chains and precious stones)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rolex S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Cellini’ for goods in class 14 (registration number 1 456 102)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 435.540 Definition of disability. ( a ) *Definition.* The agency must use the same definition of disability as used under SSI, except that— ( 1 ) In determining the eligibility of individuals whose Medicaid eligibility is protected under §§ 435.130 through 435.134, the agency must use the definition of disability that was used under the Medicaid plan in December 1973; and
( 2 ) The agency may use a more restrictive definition to determine eligibility under § 435.121, if the definition is no more restrictive than that used under the Medicaid plan on January 1, 1972.
( b ) *State plan requirements.* The State plan must contain the definition of disability.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.304 Publicizing safeguarding requirements. ( a ) The agency must publicize provisions governing the confidential nature of information about applicants and beneficiaries, including the legal sanctions imposed for improper disclosure and use.
( b ) The agency must provide copies of these provisions to applicants and beneficiaries and to other persons and agencies to whom information is disclosed.
#### § 417.542 Reinsurance costs.

Reinsurance costs are not allowable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.608 Medicare Appeals Council (Council) review.

Any party to the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal, including the MA organization, who is dissatisfied with the decision or dismissal, may request that the Council review the decision or dismissal. The regulations under part 405 of this chapter regarding Council review apply to matters addressed by this subpart to the extent that they are appropriate, except as provided in § 422.562(d)(2).

[82 FR 5125, Jan. 17, 2017]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of magnification and visual accommodation on aimpoint estimation in simulated landings with real and virtual image displaysTwenty professional pilots observed a computer-generated airport scene during simulated autopilot-coupled night landing approaches and at two points (20 sec and 10 sec before touchdown) judged whether the airplane would undershoot or overshoot the aimpoint. Visual accommodation was continuously measured using an automatic infrared optometer. Experimental variables included approach slope angle, display magnification, visual focus demand (using ophthalmic lenses), and presentation of the display as either a real (direct view) or a virtual (collimated) image. Aimpoint judgments shifted predictably with actual approach slope and display magnification. Both pilot judgments and measured accommodation interacted with focus demand with real-image displays but not with virtual-image displays. With either type of display, measured accommodation lagged far behind focus demand and was reliably less responsive to the virtual images. Pilot judgments shifted dramatically from an overwhelming perceived-overshoot bias 20 sec before touchdown to a reliable undershoot bias 10 sec later.Document ID19800025591Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsRandle, R. J.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Roscoe, S. N.*(New Mexico State Univ. Las Cruces, United States)*Petitt, J. C.*(California Univ. San Diego, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1980Subject CategoryBehavioral SciencesReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1635A-8104Accession Number80N34099Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-35-31Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19800025591.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
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Melvin D. SHULL, Appellee.

No. 78-2147/T4-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 10, 1980.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kenneth G. Spillas, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert S. Sigman, Orlando, for appellee.

NORRIS, WILLIAM A., Jr., Associate Judge.

In an amended information the state charged appellee with one count of second *1234degree grand theft of a pistol and one count of dealing in stolen property, the same pistol. Appellee filed an unverified and un-sworn amended motion to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a so-called “c-4 motion.” The state filed a traverse to the c-4 motion, and thereafter the trial court granted the amended motion to dismiss as to both counts of the amended information. In dismissing the amended information the trial court erred and we reverse.

The express language of the rule, “[t]he facts on which such motion is based should be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to,” reveals the deficiency in appellee’s motion. The motion contained neither sufficient factual allegations nor were the purported facts sworn to. In support of the amended motion appellee did file a memorandum of law which alleged facts. However, these alleged facts were not sworn to and were thus insufficient compliance with the requirements of the rule. *State v. Kling,*335 So.2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); *State*v. *McIntyre,*303 So.2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *State v. Russo,*299 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

While the procedural deficiency of the amended motion to dismiss requires reversal, we feel it is also appropriate to observe that assuming, arguendo, that the amended motion to dismiss had been sworn to and had incorporated all of the alleged facts in the supporting memorandum of law, the state’s traverse was sufficient to raise disputed material issues of fact regarding defendant’s knowledge and intent, thereby requiring a denial of the motion to dismiss. *State v. Guyton,*331 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *State v. West,*262 So.3d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

The order dismissing the amended information is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs without participation in oral argument.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAKE WORTH REAL ESTATE, INC., a Florida corporation

, and REES BOWEN GILLESPIE, III, individually, Appellant s ,

v.

SCOTT ECKLER and LINDA ECKLER, individually, SHERBROOKE PARTNERS, LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability company, EWO at SHERBROOKE, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation, REGENCY CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability company, REGENCY HOMES, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation, NRT NEW YORK, LLC d/b/a T HE CORCORAN GROUP, a Foreign limited liability

company, BANNER SUPPLY CO., a Florida corporation and KNAUF

PLASTERBOARD T I ANJIN CO., LTD., a foreign corporation

, Appellee s

.

No s . 4D 16

- 1855 and 4D16

- 1858

[ February 8, 2018 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Cir cuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Lisa S. Small , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502011CA012907XXXXMB (AH)

.

Ronald E. D'Anna of Goede, Adamczyk, Deboest & Cross PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellant s

.

Steven J. Rothman and Daniel R. Widboom of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee s Scott Eckler and Linda

Eckler.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, M AY and K UNTZ
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
- About
- Newsroom
- Compendium
- Official Schedule
- U.S. Team
- Media Logistics

HomeAbout...Cúpula das Américas

# Cúpula das Américas

## 

Os Estados Unidos sediarão a Nona Cúpula das Américas na semana de 6 a 10 de junho em Los Angeles, Califórnia, com o seguinte foco: “Construindo um futuro sustentável, resiliente e equitativo” para nosso Continente.

Como a única reunião hemisférica de líderes de países das Américas, a Cúpula serve como o fórum mais importante que visa abordar desafios e oportunidades compartilhados de nossa região. A Nona Cúpula marca a primeira vez que os Estados Unidos sediam o evento desde a reunião inaugural em Miami em 1994. É o evento de maior prioridade do presidente Biden para a região.

O povo das Américas deseja — e merece — uma governança eficaz e responsável que produza resultados. O caminho para a Nona Cúpula mapeará nossa rota coletiva em direção a um futuro sustentável, resiliente e equitativo.

Como país que ocupa as funções de presidente e anfitrião, os Estados Unidos trabalharão com as partes interessadas da região visando garantir compromissos em nível de liderança e ações concretas que melhorem drasticamente a resposta e a resiliência à pandemia, promovam uma recuperação verde e equitativa, construam democracias fortes e inclusivas, e abordem as causas profundas da migração irregular. Nosso compromisso com a diversidade e a inclusão sustentará nossos esforços.

Para mais informações e atualizações sobre o processo da Cúpula, volte para esta página.

Para saber mais sobre outros eventos, partes interessadas e maneiras de se envolver, consulte nossa página sobre partes interessadas para a Nona Cúpula das Américas: https://ixsummitamericas.org/

Back to Top