alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Togo

59 items

        -    Report  		Togo	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Togo	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Togo	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Togo	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Program Management  		Sub-Saharan Africa – Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Small Grants (Summary)	  August 7, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Togo (15-407) – Air Transport Agreement	  April 7, 2015 
        -    DSS Articles  		The Elephant in the Room:  A Special Agent Takes On Wildlife Trafficking	  February 9, 2015 
        -    		Togo (04-115) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  January 15, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Togo (03-205) – Agreement Concerning the Loan of US Government Equipment and Provision of Logistic Support Services to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) . . . in Support of the ECOFORCE Peacekeeping Operation in Cote d’Ivoire	  February 5, 2003 

previous page1…456

Back to Top
#### FARMER & IRWIN CORPORATION and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Robert M. FERRINI, Appellee.

No. AB-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 11, 1981.

Eugene N. Betts, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Frank E. Maloney, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Employer/Carrier appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant permanent total disability benefits. Although there is competent, substantial evidence to support the finding the claimant is permanently and totally disabled, the deputy commissioner erred in finding the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 22, 1980, based upon Dr. Messner’s testimony. In his deposition taken on August 22, 1980, Dr. Messner testified the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement at that time. However, he further testified he last saw the claimant on May 30, 1980. Therefore, since nothing in the record supports a maximum medical improvement date later than May 30, 1980, and the claimant concedes this point, we reverse the finding of maximum medical improvement on August 22, 1980, and remand for clarification by the deputy commissioner. Otherwise, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for clarification.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13567-000]


City of Guttenberg, IA; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

September 8, 2009.
    On August 12, 2009, City of Guttenberg, Iowa filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Guttenberg Water Power Project (Guttenberg 
Project). The Guttenberg Project would be located at the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 10, 
located at River Mile 615.0 on the Mississippi River in Clayton County, 
Iowa, and Grant County, Wisconsin, adjacent to the City of Guttenberg.
    The proposed Guttenberg Project would be installed within the 
existing and unused auxiliary lock adjacent to the 600-foot-long 
primary, operating lock which is adjacent to the existing 5,747-foot-
long Corps Lock & Dam No. 10.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Nine 485-kilowatt 
generator-turbine units totaling 4.365 megawatts (MW) that would be 
arrayed within the auxiliary lock on a frame module structure; (2) a 
new 69-kilovolt transmission line connected to an existing above-ground 
local distribution system; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project 
would have an estimated average annual generation of 27,000 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Barry Dykhuizen, City Manager, City of 
Guttenberg, P.O. Box 580, 502 S. 1st St., Guttenberg, IA 52052-0580, 
(563) 252-1161 ext. 109.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy, (202) 502-8755.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13567) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22099 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
§ 435.220 Optional eligibility for parents and other caretaker relatives. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act for optional eligibility of parents and other caretaker relatives as defined at § 435.4.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency may provide Medicaid to parents and other caretaker relatives defined in § 435.4 and, if living with such parent or other caretaker relative, his or her spouse, whose household income is at or below the income standard established by the agency in its State plan, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Income standard.* The income standard under this section— ( 1 ) Must exceed the income standard established by the agency under § 435.110(c); and
( 2 ) May not exceed the higher of the State's AFDC payment standard in effect as of July 16, 1996, or the State's highest effective income level for eligibility of parents and other caretaker relatives in effect under the Medicaid State plan or demonstration program under section 1115 of the Act as of March 23, 2010, or December 31, 2013, if higher, converted to a MAGI-equivalent standard in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary under section 1902(e)(14)(A) and (E) of the Act.
[81 FR 86453, Nov. 30, 2016]
#### § 412.260 Time and place of the oral hearing.

If the MGCRB decides that an oral hearing is necessary, it sets the time and place for the hearing and notifies the parties in writing, with a copy to CMS, not less than 10 days before the time scheduled for the hearing. The MGCRB may reschedule, adjourn, postpone, or reconvene the hearing provided that reasonable written notice is given to the parties, with a copy to CMS.
#### § 137.293 Are Self-Governance Tribes required to adopt a separate resolution or take equivalent Tribal action to assume environmental responsibilities for each construction project agreement?

No, the Self-Governance Tribe may adopt a single resolution or take equivalent Tribal action to assume environmental responsibilities for a single project, multiple projects, a class of projects, or all projects performed under section 509 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-8].
# C_2006131EN.01003201.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/32

---

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-154/06)

(2006/C 131/59)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 (1) amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 (1) amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 13 August 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 106.

1

---
#### Robert Lee MULLALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. LL-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 1, 1978.

Robert Lee Mullaly, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

Mullaly seeks review of the summary denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. As the trial court found, Mullaly’s claims of relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of evidence at trial and omission at trial of favorable evidence were not proper grounds for post-conviction relief herein.

However, Mullaly’s allegations concerning his alleged insanity at the time of trial *868raised a proper ground, if true, for post-conviction relief. The trial court, although reciting that the records conclusively refute Mullaly’s claim since he was adjudged competent to stand trial on November 13, 1973, failed to attach this portion of the record to its order denying relief. See Rule 3.850(e) Fla.R.Crim.P. The cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to attach the order of November 14, 1973 which conclusively refutes Mullaly’s claim.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 22 - 50691 **consolidated with** No. 22 - 50696

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Ignacio Chavez -**  **Guevara,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:22 - CR - 80 - 1, 4:22 - CR - 103 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges . **Per Curiam :**  ***** The attorney appointed to represent Ignacio Chavez - Guevara has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavez - Guevara has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 28, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50691 Document: 00516731386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2023No, 22 - 50691 c/w No. 22 - 50696

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal s present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to w ithdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal s are **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-50691 Document: 00516731386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2023
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4210 — Agravis/Baywa/Dr. Gräub)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 103/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
#### Jack Stanley MARINOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 2, 1979.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1979.

Rehearing Denied July 25, 1979.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary E. Marsden, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

This case presents the question of whether the following jury instruction constitutes prejudicial error:

> Proof of unexplained possession by the defendant of property recently stolen may justify a conviction of larceny of that property if the evidence of the taking and the circumstances of the possession, when considered in the light of all of the evidence in the case convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

The above charge was given over objection in defendant’s trial and conviction of grand larceny. Defendant elected not to take the stand and now asserts this charge to be error. In view of *State*v. *Young,*217 So.2d 567 (Fla.1968), we have no alternative and hold the instruction to be free from error. This Court has previously followed the *Young*decision in *Dixon v. State,*227 So.2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

Were we not bound by the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, we might well reconsider this entire question. The dissent in *Young,*written by Justice Thor-nal and concurred in by two others express*676es a contrary view. This dissent holds that *“any*possession” rather than “unexplained possession” will support the inference of guilt. This view was based on the “newly recognized constitutional protections,” stated in *Miranda v. State of Arizona,*1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. We now have over a dozen years’ experience with these newly recognized principles and would urge reconsideration by modification of the instruction as suggested in the dissent.

The judgment below is affirmed on authority of *State v. Young,*217 So.2d 567 (Fla.1968).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
§ 426.555 Prohibited provisions of the Board's decision. The Board's decision may not do any of the following: ( a ) Order CMS to add any language to a provision or provisions of an NCD.
( b ) Order CMS or its contractors to pay a specific claim.
( c ) Set a time limit for CMS to establish a new or revised NCD.
( d ) Review or evaluate an NCD other than the NCD under review.
( e ) Include a requirement for CMS or its contractors that specifies payment, coding, or systems changes for an NCD, or deadlines for implementing these types of changes.
( f ) Order or address how CMS implements an NCD.
#### William RUTHERFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 52604.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 18, 1979.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender; and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the court below, *Rutherford v. State,*349 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is quashed. The cause is remanded to the district court. The district court is directed to remand with directions that the separate sentence for display of a firearm be vacated. *Gonzalez v. State,*367 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1979); *Johnson v. State,*366 So.2d 418 (Fla.1978).

BOYD, Acting C. J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

Opinion after remand, 374 So.2d 1134.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 11


                     PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP.

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                       September 30,
                                                ---------------------------
                                                   1995            1994
                                                -----------     -----------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                                     8,079,800       8,079,800
                                                ===========     ===========

    Net income (loss)                           $  (460,840)    $   580,118
                                                ===========     ===========

Earnings per common share:

    Net income (loss)                           $     (0.06)    $      0.07
                                                ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30,
                                                ---------------------------
                                                   1995            1994
                                                -----------     -----------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                                     8,079,800       8,699,467
                                                ===========     ===========

    Net income (loss)                           $(2,438,453)    $ 1,094,102
                                                ===========     ===========

Earnings per common share:

    Net income (loss)                           $     (0.30)    $      0.13
                                                ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
#### FLORIDA GAS COMPANY, a corporation, and Lametti & Sons, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. SPECTRA-PHYSICS, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. AC-478.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

*1281Charles T. Boyd of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, Jacksonville, and Roger W. Rizk of Howell, Howell, Liles, Braddock & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellants.

William T. Stone, Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellants, Florida Gas Company and Lametti & Sons, Inc., appeal from the final summary judgment entered in favor of ap-pellee, Spectra-Physics, Inc., and from an award of costs which included the travel expenses of appellee’s attorney incurred while attending several depositions. Based upon the “relevant and competent” eviden-tiary matter in the affidavits and depositions considered by the trial judge, we agree with the trial judge’s conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); *Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell,*131 So.2d 730 (Fla.1961). We reverse, however, the award of travel expenses because the Florida courts have held on numerous occasions that such expenses are not awardable as costs “absent special provisions of contract or statute.” *Professional Computer Management, Inc. v. Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co.,*374 So.2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). See also *Sunshine Kitchens, Inc. v. Mallin,*388 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Sievert,*361 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Due to our affirmance of the summary judgment, it is unnecessary to decide appel-lee’s first point on cross-appeal dealing with Lametti & Sons’ right to contribution. In addition, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees pursuant to § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1979) as argued in appellee’s second point on cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED to correct the award of costs consistent with this opinion.

SHAW, J., and MASON, ERNEST E. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: SignalButtes quadrangle, Oregon: 7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2014 | 2015
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42124-D 3/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000992458
 
July 24, 2018
#### § 430.0 Program description.

Title XIX of the Social Security Act, enacted in 1965, authorizes Federal grants to States for medical assistance to low-income persons who are age 65 or over, blind, disabled, or members of families with dependent children or qualified pregnant women or children. The program is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and administered by States. Within broad Federal rules, each State decides eligible groups, types and range of services, payment levels for services, and administrative and operating procedures. Payments for services are made directly by the State to the individuals or entities that furnish the services.
# C_2006036EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Structural funds - Co-financing - Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and No 1685/2000 - Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes)

(2006/C 36/04)

Language of the case: Italian

In Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03: actions for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 March 2003 (C-138/03), 24 July 2003 (C-324/03) and 9 October 2003 (C-431/03), Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Flynn, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato), the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, in which it:

Italian Republic

Commission of the European Communities

| 1. | Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the action in Case C-138/03; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the action in Case C-138/03;

| 2. | Dismisses the action in Case C-324/03; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action in Case C-324/03;

| 3. | Dismisses the action in Case C-431/03 as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action in Case C-431/03 as inadmissible;

| 4. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs relating to Case C-138/03; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs relating to Case C-138/03;

| 5. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to Cases C-324/03 and C-431/03. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to Cases C-324/03 and C-431/03.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003

1

OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003

OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

---