alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard D. PRICE, and Rosemarie Price, Appellants, v. FIREMEN’S FUND AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES, a corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-625.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 4, 1975.

Beckham & McAliley and Charles F. Sansone, Miami, for appellants.

Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Mascaro, and Tully Scott, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ complaint in the circuit court was dismissed “without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ refiling their case in the County Court.” This action was improper. See R.C.P. 1.060(a).

Appellants here urge that the circuit judge erred in determining upon the record that the matter in controversy did not exceed the sum of $2,500 exclusive of interest and costs. See Fla.Stat. § 34.01. We find no error upon this point.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
40904.

#### DAVIS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Decided September 30, 1964.

Franicum, Judge.

An award made upon review by all of the directors of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation under the provisions of *Code Ann.*§ 114-708, finding in accordance with a previous award of the deputy director, is conclusive on the courts as to issues of fact decided thereby where there is any evidence to sustain it. *General Acc. &c. Corp. v. Rhodes,*83 Ga. App. 837 (1) (65 SE2d 254). Accordingly, where there was evidence which authorized findings that the claimant suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on January 15, 1962; that the employer was notified within 30 days; that if the employee suffered an additional accidental injury in the course of her employment on February 26, 1962, which aggravated the original injury, the employer had no notice thereof, as required by *Code*§ 114-303, and where the claim for compensation was not filed until January 25, 1963, one year and 10 days after the date of the original injury, the board did not err in holding in its award that the claimant was barred from recovering compensation for the first accident and injury because of her failure to file a claim therefor within one year, as required by *Code*§ 114-305, and as to the second alleged accident and injury that the claimant was barred from a recovery because of her failure to report the same to her employer within 30 days. The superior court did not err in affirming the award of the board.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

*390*Edwin L. Sterne,*for plaintiff in error.

*Perry, Walters & Langstajf, Robert B. Langstajf,*contra.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Economic Health Dialogue of the Americas Advances Through a Strategic Summit in Uruguay

# 											Economic Health Dialogue of the Americas Advances Through a Strategic Summit in Uruguay									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

December 7, 2023

On December 6, 2023, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez hosted the Economic Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA) Strategic Summit alongside Dr. Jarbas Barbosa, Director of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Minister of Health for Uruguay, Karina Rando, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) with country representatives from 18 countries.

Presentations were made from EHA co-lead countries of Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, and the United States on the advancement of our work in four key workstreams – smart spending for health and health resource analysis; prioritization of health sector transformation; social protection in emergencies; and foundations for strengthening supply chains.  The meeting served as an opportunity for countries to learn more about the progress of the EHA and begin strategic planning for the next EHA Ministerial Meeting in March 2024.

The EHA comprises a series of official sector-only meetings aimed at fostering the political will and commitments necessary to strengthen public health systems and protect economies in the region. Launched by Secretary Blinken at the Ninth Summit of the Americas in June 2022, the EHA actively supports countries in the region in coordinating efforts for health system resilience, as well as in identifying and leveraging best practices in the public sector, with a focus on the intersections of health and the economy. This initiative receives joint support from the U.S. Department of State, PAHO, the IDB, and the Organization of American States.

To learn more about the EHA, visit: Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas, and read Under Secretary Fernandez’s full remarks from the summit.

To stay up to date, follow Under Secretary Fernandez on Twitter/X:  @State_E, LinkedIn: @State-E, and Facebook: @StateDeptE.

For press inquiries, please contact: E_Communications@state.gov.

Tags

BrazilBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyGlobal HealthOffice of the SpokespersonParaguayUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentUruguay

Back to Top
# C_2006154EN.01000602.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006 — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

(Case C-164/06)

(2006/C 154/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nissan Italia Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

Defendant:

Question referred

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net output value arising from regular engagement in independent activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on production activities)?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

2

---
EXHIBIT 10.509

DESCRIPTION OF CHIRON CORPORATION'S  2001 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS VARIABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Decisions
on compensation (base salary and variable compensation) of Chiron Corporation's ('Chiron' or the 'Company') executive officers are made by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors.

For
2001, the Compensation Committee continued the Company's approach that base salaries for executive officers should be measured by reference to the median (50th percentile) of salaries for
benchmark positions in comparator companies. Further, the Compensation Committee provided that a significant portion of total cash compensation (salary plus variable compensation) in the form of
annual variable cash compensation potential should be 'at risk,' dependent upon individual, business unit and overall Company performance. Variable cash compensation for executive officers overall was
targeted to yield total cash compensation at the 50% percentile, but with the opportunity to significantly exceed the 50% percentile of total cash compensation as shown by comparative data, in the
case of outstanding Company, business unit, and individual performance.

The
Compensation Committee based its decisions regarding variable compensation for executive officers upon its evaluation of performance against pre-established performance metrics developed at the
Company, business unit and functional or corporate unit level.

Variable
compensation for the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is based on the performance of the Company as measured against the pre-established Company metrics composed of financial objectives
and technology and business innovation milestones.

Executive
officers responsible for business units or major functional or corporate units are eligible for variable compensation based on the pre-established Company metrics and on the achievement of
their respective business, functional, or corporate unit metrics.

---

QuickLinks
#### JOHN W. SIMPSON, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF JOHN G. MOORE, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[Not reported in C. Cls. R.; 252 U. S., 547.]

Judgment ivas rendered in favor of plaintiff, for a portion of the amount claimed, in the court below. On appeal by plaintiff the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

In computing succession taxes payable under the war-revenue act of 1898 upon legacies of the net income for life from funds placed with trustees for investment and reinvestment, it was lawful for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the legacies by means of general tables based on approved mortuary tables and on 4 per cent as the assumed value of money. 30 Stat.; 448, sees. 29, 30; Rev. Stats., secs. 321, 3182.

The court takes judicial notice that, at the time when the taxes involved in this case were collected, 4 per cent was very generally assumed to be the fair value of money safely invested.

Where a will directed conversion of residuary estate into money and its payment by the executors to a trustee of their selection, in trust for certain legatees, and where the trustee had been selected and the payments largely made, and there remained funds of the estate, clearly exceeding the requirements of pending claims, the payment of which to the trustee had become a duty of the executors enforceable by the legatees under the state law, *held,*that the interests of the legatees in such funds were vested, within the meaning of the refunding act of June 27, 1902, sec. 3, 32 Stat., 406. New York Oode of Civil Procedure, 1899, secs. 2718, 2721, and 2722, considered.

Proof that a suit by stockholders to obtain an accounting for promotion profits was pending against a firm of which a testator was a member, without showing the pleadings, the issues or *518character of the suit, the amount or merit of the claim, or the result of the litigation, *held,*insufficient to establish that legacies in funds in the hands of his executors were not vested, within the meaning of the refunding act of June 27, 1902, *supra.*

Mr. Justice Clarke

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 19,1920.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Dominican National Sentenced for Fraud and Identity Theft Offenses

# 									Dominican National Sentenced for Fraud and Identity Theft Offenses							

DSS Releases

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

August 4, 2017

BOSTON – A Dominican national was sentenced today in federal court in Worcester for passport fraud and aggravated identity theft.

Carlos Morillo, 46, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman to two years in prison. Morillo will be subject to deportation proceedings upon completion of his sentence. In April 2016, Morillo pleaded guilty to three counts of passport fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.

Between 2007 and 2012, Morillo submitted at least six United States passport applications under three different identities.  The State Department denied all of the applications.  Investigators identified Morillo as the person responsible after he was arrested on drug charges in 2012.

Read More 

Tags

Diplomatic SecurityDSS ReleasesMassachusetts

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                                      3,474,912
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               93,717
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              3,568,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          35,308
<BONDS>                                                             0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  3,533,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                3,568,629
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              889,055
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              296,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            117,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  475,624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2005296EN.01000402.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-502/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Management of waste - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4, 8 and 9)

(2005/C 296/08)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-502/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 November 2003 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Hellenic Republic

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.214 Special rules for services furnished by noncontract providers. ( a ) *Services furnished by non-section 1861(u) providers.* ( 1 ) Any provider (other than a provider of services as defined in section 1861(u) of the Act) that does not have in effect a contract establishing payment amounts for services furnished to a beneficiary enrolled in an MA coordinated care plan, an MSA plan, or an MA private fee-for-service plan must accept, as payment in full, the amounts that the provider could collect if the beneficiary were enrolled in original Medicare.
( 2 ) Any statutory provisions (including penalty provisions) that apply to payment for services furnished to a beneficiary not enrolled in an MA plan also apply to the payment described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Services furnished by section 1861(u) providers of service. Any provider of services as defined in section 1861(u) of the Act that does not have in effect a contract establishing payment amounts for services furnished to a beneficiary enrolled in an MA coordinated care plan, an MSA plan, or an MA private fee-for-service plan must accept, as payment in full, the amounts (less any payments under §§ 412.105(g) and 413.76 of this chapter) that it could collect if the beneficiary were enrolled in original Medicare. (Section 412.105(g) concerns indirect medical education payment to hospitals for managed care enrollees. Section 413.76 concerns calculating payment for direct medical education costs.)
( c ) *Deemed request for Medicare payment rate.* A noncontract section 1861(u) of the Act provider of services that furnishes services to MA enrollees and submits the same information that it would submit for payment under Original Medicare is deemed to be seeking to be paid the amount it would be paid under Original Medicare unless the provider expressly notifies the MA organization in writing that it is billing an amount less than such amount.
( d ) *Regional PPO payments in non-network areas.* An MA Regional PPO must pay non-contract providers the Original Medicare payment rate in those portions of its service area where it is providing access to services by non-network means under § 422.111(b)(3)(ii) of this part.
[63 FR 35085, June 26, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 40325, June 29, 2000; 70 FR 4724, Jan. 28, 2005; 70 FR 47490, Aug. 12, 2005; 76 FR 21564, Apr. 15, 2011]
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...Guatemala (20-1201) – Status of Forces Agreement

# 									Guatemala (20-1201) – Status of Forces Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 1, 2020

Defense: Status of Forces

Exchange of notes at Guatemala November 25 and December 1, 2020; entered into force December 1, 2020.
Download Agreement						 [7 MB]

Tags

DefenseGuatemalaStatus of Forces AgreementTreaties

Back to Top
#### Sadie R. BERROL, Appellant, v. CONCORD FLORIDA, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 74-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 17, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1975.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, Hastings, Goldman & Baumberger, Miami Beach, for appellant.

*311Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Steven R. Berger, Abramson, Rosen-thal & Scremin, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant appeals a summary final judgment for the defendant, Ace Terrazzo Company. Appellant’s complaint alleged that the defendant terrazzo company had refurbished the floor of the Concord Cafeteria in such a manner as to cause it to be slippery; that the defendant Concord Florida, Inc., washed or mopped the floor to remedy the slippery condition thus creating a wet condition; that as a result of the joint and/or several negligence and carelessness of the two defendants, the plaintiff, an elderly woman, was caused to slip and fall, thereby sustaining serious injuries.

The defendant terrazzo company moved for summary judgment, and after a hearing, the judgment was entered. Thereafter, a timely motion for rehearing was filed by the plaintiff. ■ The. motion was accompanied by an affidavit which plaintiff’s counsel asked the court to accept and consider on rehearing. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and refused to accept the affidavit.

Following our decision in National Properties, Inc., v. Ballenger Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 29, and the cases cited therein, we find that the court abused its discretion by refusing to accept the affidavit in support of the motion for rehearing, which affidavit in our opinion creates a genuine issue of fact.

Accordingly, we, reverse the summary final judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.
#### RICARDO CARTAS v. THE UNITED STATES.

[48 C. Cls., 161; 250 U. S., 545.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

To review a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing a petition for want of jurisdiction upon the ground that the facts alleged have no tendency to establish a contract with the United States, a finding of facts is not essential.

Paragraph 13 of article 8 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy (Rev. Stats., sec. 1624), which imposes a penalty on any person in the Navy who receives, etc., on board his vessel any goods or merchandise, for freight, sale, or traffic, except gold, silver, or jewels, for freight or safe-keeping; or who demands or receives any compensation for the receipt or transportation from the President or the Secretary of the Navy; recognizes and limits the preexisting discretion of commanding officers to receive property on board for the protection of private rights; and neither under this statute nor under section 1020 of the Navy Regulations, by which the compensation for the permitted service is to be applied to the benefit of officers and men, does such a deposit of gold give rise to any contract with the United States.

Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered tbe opinion of the Supreme Court November 10, 1919.