alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 435.1103 Presumptive eligibility for other individuals. ( a ) The terms of §§ 435.1101 and 435.1102 apply to pregnant women such that the agency may provide Medicaid to pregnant women during a presumptive eligibility period following a determination by a qualified entity that the pregnant woman has income at or below the income standard established by the State under § 435.116(c), except that coverage of services provided to such women is limited to ambulatory prenatal care and the number of presumptive eligibility periods that may be authorized for pregnant women is one per pregnancy.
( b ) If the agency provides Medicaid during a presumptive eligibility period to children under § 435.1102 or to pregnant women under paragraph (a) of this section, the agency may also apply the terms of §§ 435.1101 and 435.1102 to the individuals described in one or more of the following sections of this part, based on the income standard established by the state for such individuals and providing the benefits covered under that section: §§ 435.110 (parents and caretaker relatives), 435.119 (individuals aged 19 or older and under age 65), 435.150 (former foster care children), and 435.218 (individuals under age 65 with income above 133 percent FPL).
( c ) ( 1 ) The terms of §§ 435.1101 and 435.1102 apply to individuals who may be eligible under § 435.213 of this part (relating to individuals with breast or cervical cancer) or § 435.214 of this part (relating to eligibility for limited family planning benefits) such that the agency may provide Medicaid during a presumptive eligibility period following a determination by a qualified entity described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section that— ( i ) The individual meets the eligibility requirements of § 435.213; or
( ii ) The individual meets the eligibility requirements of § 435.214, except that coverage provided during a presumptive eligibility period to such individuals is limited to the services described in § 435.214(d).
( 2 ) Qualified entities described in this paragraph include qualified entities which participate as providers under the State plan and which the agency determines are capable of making presumptive eligibility determinations.
[78 FR 42304, July 15, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46428-46429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21681]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#601412010405010e010c1913091320060d034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a0e081b1e1f1b141b16030913093a1c1719541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 010977-062.
    Title: Hispaniola Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: Crowley Liner Services, and Seaboard Marine Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M 
Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Tropical Shipping and Construction 
Co., Ltd. as a party to the agreement.
    Agreement No.: 011279-026.
    Title: Latin America Agreement.
    Parties: ABC Discussion Agreement; Caribbean Shipowners 
Association; Central America Discussion Agreement; Compania Libra de 
Navegacion Uruguay S.A..; Hispaniola Discussion Agreement; Inland 
Shipping Services Association; Venezuelan Discussion Agreement; West 
Coast of South America Discussion Agreement; and Zim Integrated 
Shipping Services, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment updates the membership of the various 
underlying parties.
    Agreement No.: 012077.
    Title: APL/Maersk Line Reciprocal Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. Pte, Ltd.; and 
A.P. Moller Maersk A/S.
    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Counsel for APL; Goodwin 
Procter LLP; 901 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.
    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize the parties to charter 
space to each other in the trade between the United States East Coast 
and Guatemala and Honduras.


[[Page 46429]]


    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Tanga S. FitzGibbon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21681 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Russell FORSTEN a/k/a Russell Foster, Appellee.

No. 80-2281.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1981.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Alan R. Dakan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The trial court discharged the appellee on the ground, among others, that the state’s 120 day delay in bringing him to trial subsequent to the expiration of an agreed continuance violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.1 This issue “must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case as a matter of judicial discretion.” *State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen,*253 So.2d 861, 863 (Fla.1971), quoted and readopted in *Butterworth v. Fluellen,*389 So.2d 968, 970 (Fla.1980). No abuse of that discretion has been demonstrated on this record. *Negron v. State,*306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974) (100 day delay after state continuance found constitutionally unreasonable).

Affirmed.

1

. Because the defendant had previously himself both moved for and agreed to continuances, the provisions of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191 were not controlling. *Butterworth v. Fluellen,*389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980).
```
**EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary L.
Cook,  the Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Gary L. Cook
Gary L. Cook
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 15, 2003
```
# C_2006128EN.01000101.xml

| 1.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 May 2006

(2006/C 128/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2868 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4578 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68590 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2757 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5600 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,33 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8155 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,208 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 262,09 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9367 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5400 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,770 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0039 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6953 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4107 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9826 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0141 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0284 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 216,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,5459 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3186 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2650 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 909,33 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,672 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,072 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,051 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2868

JPY

Japanese yen

144,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4578

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68590

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2757

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5600

ISK

Iceland króna

92,33

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8155

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,208

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

262,09

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9367

RON

Romanian leu

3,5400

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,770

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0039

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6953

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4107

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9826

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0141

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0284

KRW

South Korean won

1 216,93

ZAR

South African rand

8,5459

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3186

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2650

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 909,33

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,672

PHP

Philippine peso

68,072

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6750

THB

Thai baht

49,051

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jay Dennis GOULD.

No. 65040.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Jay Dennis Gould, applying for supervisory writs. Orleans Parish. No. 213— 712.

Writ granted. The out of time appeal is hereby reinstated. *State of Louisiana v. Lampkin,*253 La. 337, 218 So.2d 289 (1969).
- Office Home
- Telephone Directory

HomeAbout...Telephone Directory

# 									Telephone Directory							

Abbreviations and Symbols [67 KB]

Country Offices [72 KB]

Field Offices [69 KB]

Foreign Chanceries [76 KB]

Geographic Index [67 KB]

Key Officers [418 KB]

Liaison Offices [66 KB]

Office Symbols

Organizational Directory [404 KB]

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3442

To authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who have

died in foreign conflicts other than declared wars.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1996

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to

establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its

environs to soldiers who have died in foreign conflicts

other than declared wars.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Pyramid of Remembrance

5 Foundation is authorized to establish a memorial on Fed6 eral land in the District of Columbia or its environs to

7 honor members of the Armed Forces of the United States

8 who were killed while engaged in a military operation,
2

•HR 3442 IH

1 other than a declared war, which involved conflict with an

2 opposing foreign force.

3 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO4 RATIVE WORKS.—In establishing the memorial pursuant

5 to this Act, the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation

6 shall do so in accordance with the Act entitled ‘‘An Act

7 to provide standards for placement of commemorative

8 works on certain Federal lands in the District of Columbia

9 and its environs, and for other purposes’’ approved No10 vember 14, 1986 (40 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.).

11 SEC. 2. FUNDS FOR MEMORIAL.

12 (a) USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS PROHIBITED.—Except

13 as provided in section 1(b) of this Act, no Federal funds

14 may be used to pay any expense of the establishment of

15 the memorial.

16 (b) DEPOSIT OF EXCESS FUNDS.—If—

17 (1) upon payment of all expenses of the estab18 lishment of the memorial, including payment to the

19 Treasury of the maintenance and preservation

20 amount required by section 8(b) of the Act referred

21 to in section 1(b) of this Act; or

22 (2) upon expiration of the authority for the me23 morial under section 10(b) of the Act referred to in

24 section 1(b) of this Act,
3

•HR 3442 IH

1 there remains a balance of funds received for the establish2 ment of the memorial, the Pyramid of Remembrance

3 Foundation shall transmit that balance to the Secretary

4 of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for

5 in section 8(b)(1) of the Act referred to in section 1(b)

6 of this Act.

7 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

8 For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘the District

9 of Columbia and its environs’’ has the meaning given that

10 term in section 2 of the Act referred to in section 1(b)

11 of this Act.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60303 

Conference Calendar

 

DARRELL L. BANKSTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARIAN JOSEPH ALEXANDER, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

ARIAN JOSEPH ALEXANDER, also known as Robert Alexander,

Correctional Guard; CHARLIE POPE, Deputy Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:99-CV-321-PG

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell L. Bankston, Mississippi state prisoner number

R1725, filed a complaint in the district court alleging that

correctional guard Arian Joseph Alexander used another inmate to

attack Bankston and that deputy warden Charlie Pope failed to
No. 01-60303

-2-

protect Bankston from the attack. The parties consented to the

exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The case was tried before a jury, which returned a

verdict in favor of the defendants. The magistrate judge entered

judgment dismissing the complaint. Bankston has appealed. 

Bankston contends: (1) that the jury verdict was contrary to

the evidence presented at trial; (2) that the verdict form was

misleading because it mischaracterized his claim against

Alexander as an excessive-force claim; and (3) that the

magistrate judge commented improperly during the trial that the

defendants were represented by a "distinguished" law firm. 

Bankston has not provided the court with a trial transcript. It

is the appellant’s responsibility to provide a transcript of all

relevant evidence to support his appellate argument. See FED. R.

APP. P. 10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.

1992). Bankston's failure to provide a transcript prevents this

court from reviewing these issues. Accordingly, the appeal must

be dismissed in part. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416

(5th Cir. 1990). 

Bankston has not shown that the magistrate judge abused his

discretion by denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 

See Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). The

magistrate judge's order is affirmed.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 422.666 Designation of hearing officer.

CMS designates a hearing officer to conduct the hearing. The hearing officer need not be an ALJ.
#### NORTH BATON ROUGE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF REVENUE, State of La., et al.

No. 54835.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1974.

In re: Collector of Revenue, State of La., et al., applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 294 So.2d 571.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
###### 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.

#### § 414.1500 Basis, purpose, and scope.

This subpart implements section 1861(iii) of the Act with respect to the requirements that must be met for Medicare payment to be made for home infusion services furnished to eligible beneficiaries.
§ 4.2 Definitions. As used in this part: *Act* means the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.*).
*Collections* means all books, periodicals, prints, audiovisual materials, films, videotapes, recordings, manuscripts, and other resource materials of the library. It does not include data processing tapes or programs used solely for internal processing activities to generate reference materials, nor does it include “records” of the Library as defined in 45 CFR 5.5. Records of the Library are available in accordance with the regulations under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974. (See 45 CFR parts 5 and 5b.)
*Director* means the Director of the National Library of Medicine or the Director's delegate.
*Health-sciences professional* means any person engaged in: ( 1 ) The administration of health activities;
( 2 ) the provision of health services; or
( 3 ) research, teaching, or education concerned with the advancement of medicine or other sciences related to health or improvement of the public health.
*Historical collection* means: ( 1 ) Materials in the collections published or printed prior to 1914;
( 2 ) manuscripts and prints;
( 3 ) the archival film collection; and
( 4 ) other materials of the collections which, because of age, or unique or unusual value, require special handling, storage, or protection for their preservation, as determined by the Director.
*Library* means the National Library of Medicine, established by section 465 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 286).
*Regional Medical Library* means a medical library established or maintained as a regional medical library under section 475 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 286b-6).
# C_2006143EN.01001801.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) — Elfering Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-27/05) (1)

1

(Export refunds - Material condition - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Beef and veal - Absence of proof as to the origin of the products - Applicability of penalties)

(2006/C 143/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elfering Export GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 5(4) and 51(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) — Indication, in the export declaration, that the products are of Community origin — Lack of proof of the products' origin — Applicability of penalties

Operative part of the judgment

The declaration made in an export declaration that the product in respect of which a refund is sought is of Community origin is information to which a penalty may attach under Article 51(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products in conjunction with Article 5(4) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.

1

---
#### Harry BUCHWALD, Individually and as surviving spouse of Esther Buchwald, Appellant, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTALS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1274.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.

CARROLL, J., dissents.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARK HADDEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1760

[August 17, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 561997CF001834A.

Ana M. Davide of the Law Offices of Ana M. Davide, Miami, for 

appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeInternational Claims and Investment Disputes...Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal

# 									Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

		Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Archive		

The Office of International Claims and Investment Disputes is responsible for representing the United States before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

In 1981, the United States and Iran entered into the Algiers Accords, which brought an end to the Embassy hostage crisis and created the Tribunal to resolve existing disputes between the two countries and their nationals. The Tribunal sits in The Hague, The Netherlands and is comprised of nine arbitrators: three appointed by Iran, three by the United States, and three by the party-appointed members acting jointly or, in absence of agreement by an appointing authority.

Under the Accords, the United States released the vast majority of Iran’s “frozen” assets and transferred them directly to Iran or to various accounts to pay outstanding claims. Almost all of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal have been resolved and have resulted in more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies. The period for filing new private claims against Iran expired on January 19, 1982.

The two governments have also filed claims against each other. The vast majority of these inter-governmental claims were filed by Iran against the United States. While some parts of those claims have been resolved, a number of major cases remain to be adjudicated at the Tribunal.

Persons seeking additional information with respect to the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal may write to:

Office of the Legal AdviserSuite 203, South Building2430 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20037-2800

 

Tags

Legal Adviser

Back to Top