alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006131EN.01002302.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-43/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 131/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, D. Martin and H. Kreppel, Agents, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: U. Forsthoff, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.

1

---
LME Official Prices, US$ per tonne

Contract Price

Cash Buyer 1876.00

Cash Seller & Settlement 1876.50

3-months Buyer 1925.00

3-months Seller 1926.00

Dec 1 Buyer 2043.00

Dec 1 Seller 2048.00

Dec 2 Buyer 2138.00

Dec 2 Seller 2143.00

Dec 3 Buyer 2233.00

Dec 3 Seller 2238.00

LME Official Prices Curve

Settlement Exchange Rates

Currency Exchange rate

LME Index value 3226

Home Metals Non-ferrous metals Aluminium

LME Aluminium

Register for free (/en-gb/register-for-additional-access/) to display historical aluminium prices, stocks or monthly

averages (/en-gb/metals/reports/averages/) .

Stocks and prices for 16 August 2013

LME Official Opening stocks in tonnes

Stocks Amount

Opening Stock 5438675

Live Warrants 3378275

Cancelled Warrants 2060400
GB Pounds Sterling 1.5629

Japanese Yen 97.55

Euro 1.3342

LME Asian Benchmark, US$ per tonne

16 August 2013

Metal Price

Aluminium 3-months ABR 1915.86

Access real time prices and trading information via LMElive (/en-gb/pricing-and-data/lmelive/) or our Licensed Data

Distributor network (/en-gb/pricing-and-data/distributors/) .

Ring trading times

First session (UK)

1st Ring 11:55-12:00

2nd Ring (Official) 12:55-13:00

Kerb Trading* 13:20-14:45

Second session (UK)

1st Ring 15:15-15:20

2nd Ring (Official) 15:55-16:00

Kerb Trading 16:15-17:00

London Metal Exchange - A member of HKEx Group. © 2013 The London Metal Exchange. All rights reserved.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2429

JOSE ROBERTO PINEDA PICHINTE, a/k/a Jose Roberto Pineda ,
Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : August 31, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald

- Sambou, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATE S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jose Roberto Pineda Pichinte , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Pineda Pichinte first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum
application is time

- barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (201 9 ). We lack jurisdiction to review
this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) and find th at Pineda Pichinte has not
raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

See Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the
petition for review in part with respect to the asylum claim.

Pineda Pichinte next challenges the agency’s denial of his requests for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Pineda Pichinte ’s merit s hearing and all
supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Pineda Pichinte (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2019 ).3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART
, DENIED IN PART
§ 419.83 List of hospital outpatient department services requiring prior authorization. ( a ) *Service categories for the list of hospital outpatient department services requiring prior authorization.* ( 1 ) The following service categories comprise the list of hospital outpatient department services requiring prior authorization beginning for service dates on or after July 1, 2020: ( i ) Blepharoplasty.
( ii ) Botulinum toxin injections.
( iii ) Panniculectomy.
( iv ) Rhinoplasty.
( v ) Vein ablation.
( 2 ) The following service categories comprise the list of hospital outpatient department services requiring prior authorization beginning for service dates on or after July 1, 2021: ( i ) Cervical Fusion with Disc Removal.
( ii ) Implanted Spinal Neurostimulators.
( 3 ) The Facet Joint Interventions service category requires prior authorization beginning for service dates on or after July 1, 2023.
( b ) *Adoption of the list of services and technical updates.* ( 1 ) CMS will adopt the list of hospital outpatient department service categories requiring prior authorization and any updates or geographic restrictions through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
( 2 ) Technical updates to the list of services, such as changes to the name of the service or Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, will be published on the CMS website.
( c ) *Exemptions.* CMS may elect to exempt a provider from the prior authorization process in § 419.82 upon a provider's demonstration of compliance with Medicare coverage, coding, and payment rules in chapter IV of this title or in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act through such prior authorization process. ( 1 ) An exemption will remain in effect until CMS elects to withdraw the exemption.
( 2 ) Notice of an exemption or withdraw of an exemption will be provided at least 60 days prior to the effective date.
( d ) *Suspension of prior authorization process or services.* CMS may suspend the outpatient department services prior authorization process requirements generally or for a particular service(s) at any time by issuing notification on the CMS website.
[84 FR 61491, Nov. 12, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 86303, Dec. 29, 2020; 87 FR 72292, Nov. 23, 2022]
1

Filed 2/8/21 Randall v. Superior Court CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not 

certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been 

certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JEFFREY RANDALL,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN 

MATEO COUNTY,

Respondent;

FANCHON BRIANNA CALDWELL, 

et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

 A161750

 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. 

 Nos. FAM0123273, FAM0129072, 

 FAM0131885,16-FAM-00725, & 

 16-FAM-00587)

BY THE COURT1:

In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might 

do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first 

instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 

177–180.) Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would 

be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral 

argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v.

Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; Brown, 

1 Before Kline, P.J., Richman, J., and Stewart, J.
2

Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240–

1244.) 

The record reflects petitioner filed his verified statement of 

disqualification on December 1, 2020, but Judge Dabel did not strike the 

statement of disqualification or answer until December 18, 2020, beyond the 

prescribed ten-day period. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 170.3(c) and 170.4(b); 

PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 965, 972 [ten-day time limit 

imposed by section 170.3(c) is the only restraint on the power retained by a 

judge to strike a statement of disqualification pursuant to the guidelines of 

section 170.4(b)].) A “judge must strike the insufficient statement within the 

10–day period prescribed in section 170.3, subdivision (c)(3) for filing an 

answer. Thereafter, the judge is deemed disqualified and has no power to act 

in the case.” (Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 420–

421.) 

Therefore, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent 

superior court to (1) set aside and vacate the December 18, 2020 “Order 

Striking Statement of Disqualification; in the Alternative, Verified Answer of 

Judge Sean P. Dabel” and (2) reassign the above-captioned cases from Judge 

Dabel to another judge. The temporary stay imposed January 13, 2021 is 

dissolved.

In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision 

shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The remittitur will issue immediately upon the finality 

of this opinion as to this court, should the parties so stipulate. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rules 8.272(c)(1) and 8.490(d).)
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2957

To deauthorize a portion of the navigation project for Weymouth-Fore and

Town Rivers, Massachusetts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To deauthorize a portion of the navigation project for

Weymouth-Fore and Town Rivers, Massachusetts.

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

3 That the following 35-foot deep channel portion of the

4 project for navigation, Weymouth-Fore and Town Rivers,

5 Massachusetts, authorized by section 301 of the River and

6 Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1089), is not authorized

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act: Beginning at

8 a bend on the southern limit of the existing project,

9 N457,394.01, E741,109.74, thence running westerly

10 about 405.25 feet to a point, N457,334.64, E740,708.86,
2

•HR 2957 IH

1 thence running southwesterly about 462.60 feet to another

2 bend in the southern limit of the existing project,

3 N457,132.00, E740,293.00, thence running northeasterly

4 about 857.74 feet along the southern limit of the existing

5 project to the point of origin.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21716]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, 
September 10, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
September 10, 2009 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21716 Filed 9-3-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.110 Discrimination against beneficiaries prohibited. ( a ) *General prohibition.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an MA organization may not deny, limit, or condition the coverage or furnishing of benefits to individuals eligible to enroll in an MA plan offered by the organization on the basis of any factor that is related to health status, including, but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Medical condition, including mental as well as physical illness.
( 2 ) Claims experience.
( 3 ) Receipt of health care.
( 4 ) Medical history.
( 5 ) Genetic information.
( 6 ) Evidence of insurability, including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence.
( 7 ) Disability.
( b ) *Exception.* For coverage before January 1, 2021, an MA organization may not enroll an individual who has been medically determined to have end-stage renal disease. However, an enrollee who develops end-stage renal disease while enrolled in a particular MA organization may not be disenrolled for that reason. An individual who is an enrollee of a particular MA organization, and who resides in the MA plan service area at the time he or she first becomes MA eligible, or, an individual enrolled by an MA organization that allows those who reside outside its MA service area to enroll in an MA plan as set forth at § 422.50(a)(3)(ii), then that individual is considered to be “enrolled” in the MA organization for purposes of the preceding sentence.
[63 FR 35077, June 26, 1998; 63 FR 52612, Oct. 1, 1998; 64 FR 7980, Feb. 17, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 40321, June 29, 2000; 70 FR 4721, Jan. 28, 2005; 85 FR 33904, June 2, 2020]
HomeFunding Opportunity Announcements...FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Advancing Interim and Durable Solutions

# 									FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Advancing Interim and Durable Solutions							

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

April 18, 2024

## Basic Information

**Funding Opportunity Number:** DFOP0013979**Assistance Listings (CFDA) number:** 19.522 – Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Strategic Global Priorities**Announcement issuance date:** Tuesday, April 16, 2024**Announcement type:** Cooperative Agreement**Proposal application submission deadline: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 23:59:59 p.m. EDT Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.****Anticipated timeframe to award for selected proposals:** Pending the availability of funds, PRM anticipates, but makes no guarantee, that awards will be made less than three months from the proposal submission deadline.

#### Advisory

All applicants must submit proposal application packages through the website Grants.gov. PRM strongly recommends submitting your application packages early to allow time to address any technical difficulties that may arise on the Grants.gov website. If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated. We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines  “Application Process” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly. PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher. PRM strongly recommends application narratives be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths  based on software versions and configurations when transmitted. Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents. Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the concept note’ score. All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use. Organizations can retrieve PRM’s-recommended templates and NGO guidelines on PRM’s website and in this opportunity’s grants.gov page.
Download the Announcement						 [481 KB]

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationHumanitarian AidRefugees

Back to Top
#### Jay MARSCHALL and Marilyn Marschall, his wife, Appellants, v. WATER-BOGGAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; Water-Boggan Construction Company, a Florida corporation; Gregory Anders; Neville B. Rich; Walter B. Rooke; and Charles Matheson, Appellees.

No. 80-2107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1981.

*1158Bartel & Shuford and Robert A. Swee-tapple, Miami, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

The appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal an order dismissing their complaint, for want of prosecution, entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).

The plaintiffs’ original action was commenced in 1977. On October 17, 1978, the court granted an order pursuant to a stipulation permitting the withdrawal of counsel for the defendants and postponing hearings on all pending motions until such time as new counsel of record for the defendants file an appearance. The defendants did not cause a new attorney of record to appear on their behalf. On March 25, 1980, on its own initiative, the trial court entered an order requiring reservice of all resident and nonresident defendants. Alias summonses were issued and substituted service was ostensibly perfected upon all defendants. On August 27, 1980, a notice of hearing on motion for order of dismissal was initiated by the court requiring the plaintiffs to show good cause in writing before September 16, 1980 why the cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs timely filed a response reciting the foregoing facts. Nonetheless, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for want of prosecution by order entered October 3, 1980.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) provides that:

> All actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise has occurred for a period of one year shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion ....

By the terms of the rule, an “order of court” constitutes record activity. The computation of time for dismissal of actions is determined by calculating the time between the date of filing the last affirmative act and the date of the filing of the motion to dismiss or abate for failure to proceed according to the mandate of the rule. *Florida East Coast Railway Company*v. *Southern Sanitation Service,*392 So.2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); *Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett,*274 So.2d 15 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

The order of March 25, 1980, requiring reservice of process, was record activity. The return of the alias summonses and substituted service likewise constituted record *1159activity. Therefore, the October 3, 1980 order dismissing the action was improper because there was record activity during the one-year period preceding the motion for dismissal.

Reversed and remanded.
Home2001 Treaties and Agreements...Guatemala (01-903) – Transportation Aviation Agreement

# 									Guatemala (01-903) – Transportation Aviation Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 3, 2001

Transportation:  Aviation

Agreement, with annexes, signed at San Jose May 8, 1997; entered into force September 3, 2001.
Download Agreements						 [19 MB]

Tags

GuatemalaTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 35.35 Unsalable articles.

Articles having no commercial value shall be stored, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of as the officer in charge may direct.
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Information Resource Management...Directorates – Bureau of Information Resource Management

# 									Directorates							

Bureau of Information Resource Management

### Business, Management and Planning

Business, Management, and Planning is responsible for centrally managing a $2.55B global IT portfolio and servicing an 76K person workforce. This includes providing executive leadership for IT strategy, portfolio management, enterprise architecture, digital diplomacy, policy and performance, and IT workforce planning.

### Cyber Operations

Cyber Operations is responsible for the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and for establishing and implementing the enterprise vision, strategy, and programs that ensure information assets and technologies are adequately protected.

### Foreign Operations

Foreign Operations is IRM’s field focused directorate providing IT infrastructure, core IT modernization, telephone systems and radio networks, emergency and mobile satellite systems, and other programs and services for over 300 sites around the world, including embassies, consulates, annexes, and missions to international organizations.

### Operations

Operations is responsible for the worldwide information technology operations including networks, e-mail, desktop support, mobile technologies, software development, equipment modernization, data center operations, telephones, and radios.

Tags

Bureau of Information Resource ManagementInformation Technology

Back to Top