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

§ 414.64 Payment for medical nutrition therapy. ( a ) Payment under the physician fee schedule . Medicare payment for medical nutrition therapy is made under the physician fee schedule in accordance with subpart B of this part. Payment to nonphysician professionals, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, is 80 percent (or 100 percent if such services are recommended with a grade of A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force for any indication or population and are appropriate for the individual) of the lesser of the actual charges or 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount.
( b ) *To whom payment may be made.* Payment may be made to a registered dietician or nutrition professional qualified to furnish medical nutrition therapy in accordance with part 410, subpart G of this chapter.
( c ) *Effective date of payment.* Medicare pays suppliers of medical nutrition therapy on or after the effective date of enrollment of the supplier at the carrier.
( d ) *Limitation on payment.* Payment is made only for documented nutritional therapy sessions actually attended by the beneficiary.
( e ) *Other conditions for fee-for-service payment.* Payment is made only if the beneficiary: ( 1 ) Is not an inpatient of a hospital, SNF, nursing home, or hospice.
( 2 ) Is not receiving services in an RHC, FQHC or ESRD dialysis facility.
[66 FR 55332, Nov. 1, 2001, as amended at 86 FR 65668, Nov. 19, 2021]
#### Syken v. Stevenson

*Joseph G. Feldman,*for plaintiff.

*Robert A. Detweiler,*for defendant.

December 1, 1954.

Reimel, J.,

This is an action in trespass for injuries sustained when the rear vision mirror extending from the left side of defendant’s vehicle struck the hand of plaintiff extended from his vehicle to indicate that he was about to make a left turn from Columbia Avenue into Watts Street.

The testimony viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff is that on October 25, 1953, at about 1:45 a.m. plaintiff was operating his automobile in an easterly direction on Columbia Avenue. ‘Intending to make a left turn north on Watts Street, a “T” intersection, he stopped and waited for westbound traffic on Columbia Avenue to pass him. He put'his arm out *129to ,signal for his turn. Two or three westbound ears passed him. ■ Defendant’s car was the last in the westbound line. Plaintiff saw defendant’s vehicle when it was 50 feet away. The left sides of the respective cars were 10 or 12 feet apart. When defendant’s vehicle was ,30 feet from plaintiff, defendant’s car veered to its left, and as it passed plaintiff’s car the rear view mirror struck plaintiff’s hand.

Plaintiff in extending his arm from and beyond the left side of his vehicle to indicate his intention to negotiate a left turn from Columbia Avenue was fulfilling his duty under The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, sec. 1012, as amended, 75 PS §571. Moreover he brought his vehicle to a standstill in the portion of the highway nearest to the center line as required (75 PS §546). In addition thereto the question of whether the extension of plaintiff’s arm is a legally contributing, cause of the injury is a question for the jury; see Kovalish v. Smith et al., 357 Pa. 219, 222; A. L. I. Restatement of the Law of Torts, §463.

Plaintiff at the place where he stopped his vehicle and with his hand extended to indicate that he intended to make a left turn was not required to anticipate and guard against the want of ordinary care on the part of defendant whose vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction; see Weinberg v. Broomall, 111 Pa. Superior Ct., 115, 119.

As a result of the accident plaintiff sustained a fracture of the forearm disabling him for 11 weeks, seven weeks of which his arm was in a cast; he lost a diamond ring valued at $1,250; he incurred a hospital bill of $70 and a physician’s bill of .$84. In rendering a finding in the sum of $1,800 the court awarded plaintiff less than $400 for pain and suffering. This finding is eminently fair.

*130We have carefully considered the evidence and are of the opinion that defendant was afforded a fair trial. We, therefore, enter the following.

*Order*

And now, to wit, December 1, 1954, defendant’s exceptions to the findings of the court are dismissed and judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,800.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RAFAEL PINEDA

- SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 71665 Agency No. A206

- 766

- 580

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018 ** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Rafael Pineda

- Sanchez , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71665

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’ s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Pineda

- Sanchez
did not establish he suffered past persecution where he was not personally harmed
or threatened , and did not establish that his uncle’s killing was part of a pattern or practice of persecution closely tied to him. See id. at 1060 . Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Pineda

- Sanchez did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution where he remained unharmed in El Salvador for three years after his uncle was killed, and his similarly sit uated teenaged siblings r emained in El Salvador unharmed

. See Aruta v. IN S , 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (p etitioner did not establish objectively reasonable fear of persecution where similarly situated family member remained unharmed in the “alleged zone of danger”); Casti llo v. INS , 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (“When determining the objective reasonableness of an alien ’ s claim of well

founded fear of persecution the BIA may properly consider as significant a petitioner ’ s continued safe and undisturbed residence in his homeland after the3 17

- 71665

occurrence of the event which is alleged to have induced his fear.”) . Thus,
Pineda

- Sanchez’s asylum claim fails. In this case, b ecause Pineda

- Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility fo r withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006)

. Finally, s ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Pineda

- Sanchez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador

. See
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-01-195)

Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals the district court’s order

denying Rashaad’s motion for production of transcripts at

Government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See United States v. Rashaad, No. CR-01-195

(W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 18, 2003 & entered Aug. 19, 2003). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alfacell Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kuslima Shogen, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.




                        /s/ Kuslima Shogen
                        -----------------------
                        Name:  Kuslima Shogen
                        Title:  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                        Date:  November 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46464-46465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21664]


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

JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES


Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment 
of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee 
on Actuarial Examinations.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 23, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 
5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 
LLP, 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick W. McDonough, Executive 
Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-622-
8225.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Advisory 
Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Sonnenschein Nath & 
Rosenthal LLP, 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO on Friday, 
October 23, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss questions that may be 
recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in 
actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 
U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the 
meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set 
forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest 
requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.


[[Page 46465]]


    Dated: August 28, 2009.
Patrick W. McDonough,
Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
[FR Doc. E9-21664 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# West Bank

67 items

        -    Report  		2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Israel, West Bank and Gaza	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza – West Bank and Gaza	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: West Bank Summary	   
        -    Report  		West Bank and Gaza	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza – West Bank and Gaza	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		West Bank and Gaza	  June 29, 2017 

previous page1…567

Back to Top
No. 99-476.

#### Valence Technology, Inc., et al. v. Berry et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Paraguayan Vice President Hugo Velazquez and Yacyretá Bi-National Entity Legal Counsel Juan Carlos Duarte for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Paraguayan Vice President Hugo Velazquez and Yacyretá Bi-National Entity Legal Counsel Juan Carlos Duarte for Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 12, 2022

The United States is designating Paraguayan Vice President Hugo Velazquez and Yacyretá Bi-National Entity Legal Counsel Juan Carlos “Charly” Duarte for involvement in significant corruption, including bribery of a public official and interference in public processes.

Duarte, a close personal and professional associate of Vice President Velazquez, offered a bribe to a Paraguayan public official in order to obstruct an investigation that threatened the Vice President and his financial interests. Corrupt acts such as these also contribute to diminished confidence in the government and public perceptions of corruption and impunity within the office of the Paraguayan Vice President. Additionally, Duarte’s act of corruption abused and exploited his powerful and privileged public position within the Yacyretá Bi-National Entity, risking public confidence in one of Paraguay’s most vital economic assets.

This public designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022. As part of this action, the Department is also designating Velazquez’s immediate family members, including Lourdes Maria Andrea Samaniego Gonzalez, Dionicio Adalberto Velazquez Gimenez, Sonya Rebeca Velazquez Escauriza, and Hugo Jose Velazquez Escauriza; and Duarte’s immediate family members including Ninfa Concepcion Vera Moreira and Tamara Duarte Martinez.

These designations reaffirm the commitment of the United States to combat corruption, which harms the public interest, hampers countries’ economic prosperity, and curtails the ability of governments to respond effectively to the needs of their people. The United States continues to stand with all Paraguayans in support of democracy and the rule of law and will continue to promote accountability for those who abuse public power for personal gain, regardless of their position or political affiliation.

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionOffice of the SpokespersonParaguayThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 800.247 Targets or tailors. ( a ) The term *targets or tailors* means customizing products or services for use by a person or group of persons or actively marketing to or soliciting a person or group of persons.
( b ) Examples: ( 1 ) *Example 1.* Corporation A, a U.S. business, operates facilities throughout the United States that offer healthcare-related products and services. Some of Corporation A's facilities are located within metropolitan areas that also include U.S. military facilities. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A does not target or tailor its products or services for purposes of § 800.241(a)(1)(i)(A).
( 2 ) *Example 2.* Same facts as the example in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, except that Corporation A operates a facility on the premises of a U.S. military facility. Corporation A targets or tailors its products or services for purposes of § 800.241(a)(1)(i)(A).
( 3 ) *Example 3.* Corporation A, a U.S. business, offers a discount to all customers that are employed in the public sector broadly, including active duty U.S. military personnel. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A does not target or tailor its products or services for purposes of § 800.241(a)(1)(i)(A).
( 4 ) *Example 4.* Same facts as the example in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, except that Corporation A offers a discount solely to uniformed U.S. military personnel and distributes marketing materials that promote the particular usefulness of Corporation A's products to military personnel. Corporation A targets or tailors its products or services for purposes of § 800.241(a)(1)(i)(A).
Exhibit 10.28


 


Summary of
Board of Director Compensation Effective January 1, 2009


 


Annual
retainer of $55,500 ($110,000 for the Chairman of the Board);


 


Meeting fees of $2,000/meeting;


 


Meeting fees of $1,500/committee meeting
($3,000/committee meeting for Committee Chairmen);


 


Award of 5,000 shares of restricted Class A
common stock upon initial election to the Board of Directors;


 


After initial election, annual discretionary
award of $125,000 in restricted Class A stock, the number of shares to be
determined based on the closing market price of the Company’s Class A
common stock on the grant date, which is the first business day of January,
unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors;


 


Reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses
incurred in attending meetings;


 


Eligibility to participate in the Company’s
group health insurance plan, a portion of the premiums for which are paid by
the Company; and


 


Ability to convert annual cash compensation
into restricted stock under the Company’s 1998 Non-Employee Director Stock
Award Plan, as amended and restated.  The
number of shares of restricted stock granted is determined based on the closing
market price of the Company’s Class A common stock as of the grant date.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Percy L. TATE v. Warden Frank BLACKBURN.

No. 66455.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1980.

In re Percy L. Tate, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 255-943.

Denied.
#### Rebecca GRIMES, Petitioner, v. MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL et al., Respondents.

No. 45993.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 6, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOYD, Mc-CAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
#### Edwin Davidson, by Albert Davidson, His Guardian *Ad Litem,*Plaintiff, *v.*The Mayor, etc., of the city of New York, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,

September, 1898.)

Municipal corporations — Not liable for negligence of an employee engaged in performing a governmental function.

The statutory duty, imposed by section 704 of chapter 410 of the Laws of 1882, upon the commissioner of street cleaning of the city of New York of removing from the city, or otherwise disposing of garbage, etc., as often as the public health may require, is a governmental function performed in the interest of the general welfare and . the city is not liable to one who is injured by the negligence of a driver who was engaged in removing waste paper and garbage from houses on a' city street. ■

Motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial.

A. Welles Stump (George C. Harrison, of counsel), for plaintiff.

■ John Whalen, corporation counsel (Harold S. Rankine, of counsel), for defendant.

Chester, J.

An examination of, this case.leads me to the conclusion that I should follow the decision in the case of Bishop v. Mayor, 21 Misc. Rep. 598. In that case the injuries were caused by an empty ash cart, belonging to the street cleaning, department, *561while being drawn in the street. It did not appear what special duty the driver was engaged in at the time. Here it appears that at the time of the accident the driver was not engaged in cleaning streets but was employed in removing waste paper and other garbage from houses on Madison avenue. In the absence of a statute there would be no obligation resting upon the city to remove refuse from houses, but the Consolidation Act, § 704, charges the commissioner of street cleaning with the duty of removing from the city, or otherwise disposing of, ashes and garbage as often as the public health may require. This, under the principle of the case referred to, .is not a duty performed for the benefit and advantage of the city as a corporation, but is a general governmental function performed in the interest of the public health and for the general welfare of all the people. That being so, the defendant is not liable for the injuries sued for. Maxmilian v. Mayor, 62 N. Y. 162; Condict v. Jersey City, 46 N. J. L. 157.

The motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is granted.

Motion granted.
#### § 423.2400 Basis and scope.

This subpart is based on sections 1857(e)(4), 1860D-12(b)(3)(D), and 1106 of the Act, and sets forth medical loss ratio requirements for Part D sponsors, financial penalties and sanctions against Part D sponsors when minimum medical loss ratios are not achieved by Part D sponsors and release of medical loss ratio data to entities outside of CMS.

[81 FR 80558, Nov. 15, 2016]
# C_2005223EN.01000402.xml

| 10.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3838 — Avid/Pinnacle)

(2005/C 223/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3838. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3838. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

MR. JASON PARKER, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE RAYFORD 

A. MEANS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Application for an Immediate 

Hearing are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) 

(providing that hybrid representation is not permitted). 

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record and to 

strike the name of the jurist from the caption.