alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home2014 Treaties and Agreements...Germany (14-210) – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation on the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On Mission

# 									Germany (14-210) – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation on the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On Mission							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

February 10, 2014

Space

Signed at Washington and Potsdam January 31 and February 10, 2014; entered into force February 10, 2014.
Download attachment						 [6 MB]

Tags

GermanySpaceTreaties

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

§ 405.1813 Good cause extension of time limit for requesting a contractor hearing. ( a ) A request for a contractor hearing that is received by the contractor after the applicable 180-day time limit prescribed in § 405.1811(a)(3) or § 405.1811(c)(2) must be dismissed by the contractor hearing officer(s), except that the hearing officer(s) may extend the time limit upon a good cause showing by the provider.
( b ) The contractor hearing officer(s) may find good cause to extend the time limit only if the provider demonstrates in writing it could not reasonably have been expected to file timely due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control (such as a natural or other catastrophe, fire, or strike), and the provider's written request for an extension is received by the contractor hearing officer(s) within a reasonable time (as determined by the contractor hearing officer(s) under the circumstances) after the expiration of the applicable 180-day limit prescribed in § 405.1811(a)(3) or § 405.1811(c)(2).
( c ) The contractor hearing officer(s) may not grant a request for an extension under this section if— ( 1 ) The provider relies on a change in the law, regulations, CMS Rulings, or general CMS instructions (whether based on a court decision or otherwise) or a CMS administrative ruling or policy as the basis for the extension request; or
( 2 ) The date of receipt by the contractor of the provider's extension request is later than 3 years after the date of the contractor or other determination that the provider seeks to appeal.
( d ) If an extension request is granted or denied under this section, the contractor hearing officer(s) must send prompt written notice to the provider, and send a copy to each party to the appeal. The notice must include an explanation of the reasons for the decision by the hearing officer(s) and the facts underlying the decision.
( e ) ( 1 ) A decision denying an extension request under this section and dismissing the appeal is final and binding on the provider, unless the dismissal decision is reviewed by a CMS reviewing official in accordance with § 405.1834(b)(2)(i) of this subpart or reopened and revised by the contractor hearing officer(s) in accordance with § 405.1885 through § 405.1889 of this subpart. The contractor hearing officer(s) promptly sends the decision to the appropriate component of CMS (currently the Center for Medicare Management) (as specified in § 405.1834(b)(4) of this subpart).
( 2 ) A decision granting an extension request under this section is not subject to immediate review by a CMS reviewing official (as described in § 405.1834(b)(3) of this subpart). Any decision may be examined during the course of CMS review of a final jurisdictional dismissal decision or a final hearing decision by the contractor hearing officer(s) (as described in §§ 405.1834(b)(2)(i) and 405.1834(b)(2)(ii) of this subpart).
[73 FR 30245, May 23, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 70598, Nov. 13, 2015; 85 FR 59019, Sept. 18, 2020]
#### Rawson COLEMAN et al. v. John MARZULLO et al.

No. 54933.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1974.

In re: John Marzullo and Colonial Bank applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 296 So.2d 437.

Writ denied. Upon the Court of Appeal’s finding that the shareholders did not in fact vote to limit the number of directors to be elected at the shareholders’ meeting, the result is correct.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The chairman posed a dual question to the stockholders which I paraphrase. If you favor 11 directors, vote for eleven and if the majority so vote an eleven (11) man board will be seated composed of the 11 directors receiving a majority of votes. If you favor a IS man board vote for IS directors. If a majority voting vote for 15 directors, the board will consist of 15 and the IS receiving a majority will be seated. 197,000 votes were cast for an 11 man board. Only 26,000 votes were cast for the 15 man board. 11 directors were fixed as the board limit and 11 directors received a majority of votes cast. The IS man board proposition failed. The four (4) voted for by the losing voters on the first proposition, failed to carry a majority of votes cast under the second proposition of electing 11 board members. The purpose of the law is defeated by the result reached here. I agree with the majority that the meeting did not have to elect all directors which were permitted. The meeting could limit the number of board members under the called election to any number 20 or less. They did here. They limited the board to *111*
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

(Case C-98/06)

(2006/C 86/38)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court), Sweden of 8 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Freeport PLC, London, Great Britain and Olle Arnoldsson on the following questions:

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3271 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3271

  To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend the period of time within 
   which workers may file a petition for trade adjustment assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 1996

Mr. English of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Traficant, 
  Mr. Holden, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Rahall, Ms. McKinney, Mr. 
  Spratt, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. Klink, Mr. 
Calvert, and Mr. Ney) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend the period of time within 
   which workers may file a petition for trade adjustment assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 223(b)(1) 
of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
``one year'' and inserting ``two years''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 405.946 Evidence to be submitted with the redetermination request. ( a ) *Evidence submitted with the request.* When filing the request for redetermination, a party must explain why it disagrees with the contractor's determination and should include any evidence that the party believes should be considered by the contractor in making its redetermination.
( b ) *Evidence submitted after the request.* When a party submits additional evidence after filing the request for redetermination, the contractor's 60 calendar day decision-making time frame is automatically extended for up to 14 calendar days for each submission.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 37702, June 30, 2005; 74 FR 65333, Dec. 9, 2009]
# C_2006147EN.01001001.xml

| 23.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/10

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS SUB 01-2006

CALL FOR PROPOSALS SUB 01-2006

(2006/C 147/07)

The Commission is planning to grant subsidies totalling the indicative amount of EUR 250 000 for the organisation of various conferences to promote energy and transport policy and, in particular, the policy priorities fixed in the 2006 Work Programme.

The specific topics selected for 2006 are as follows:

| — | safety and security in energy and transport; |
| --- | --- |

—

safety and security in energy and transport;

| — | development of transport markets (trends, competition, constraints, economic aspects). |
| --- | --- |

—

development of transport markets (trends, competition, constraints, economic aspects).

Information on this call for proposal is available on the DG TREN website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/grants/proposal_fr.htm

---
#### FULTON V. THE STATE. (Two cases.)

(Decided June 30, 1911.)

Appeal from Bessemer City Court.

Heard before Hon. William Jackson.

Pinkney Scott, for appellant.

R. C. Briokell, Attorney general, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Abated by death of appellant.

See 107 Ala. 54 South. 165.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.56 Special waiver provisions applicable to American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* Section 1902(j) of the Act provides for waiver of all but three of the title XIX requirements, in the case of American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.
( b ) *Waiver provisions.* American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands may request, and CMS may approve, a waiver of any of the title XIX requirements except the following: ( 1 ) The Federal medical assistance percentage specified in section 1903 of the Act and § 433.10(b) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The limit imposed by section 1108(c) of the Act on the amount of Federal funds payable to American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands for care and services that meet the section 1905(a) definition for Medicaid assistance.
( 3 ) The requirement that payment be made only with respect to expenditure made by American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands for care and services that meet the section 1905(a) definition of medical assistance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148487

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148487

COA: 309365 

Wayne CC: 10-011337-FH

NATALIE ERNESTINE FOSTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________ No. 14

- 12749 Non

- Argument Calendar

___________________________

Docket No. 1:14

- cv - 00461

- AT , Bkcy No. 13

- bkc

- 72472

- WLH

In re: NASRUDDIN LAKHANI, Debtor.

__________________________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus NASRUDDIN LAKHANI, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

_______________________________ ( November 19, 2014 ) Case: 14-12749 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges

.

PER CURIAM: Bank of America, N.A. appeals the district court’s summary affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order voiding a wholly unsecured second priority lien on residential property owned by a Chapter 7 debtor. The bankruptcy court granted Debtor’s request to “strip off” the unsecured junior lien, based on this Court’s binding precedent in McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (In re McNeal) , 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin. (In re Folendore) , 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) ). In McNeal , we conclud ed that a Chapter 7 debtor is allowed to “strip off” a second priority lien on his home, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d), when the first priority lien exceeds the value of th e property

. Bank of America acknowledges that this panel is bound by the Cou rt’s decisions in McNeal and Folendore but reserves the right to seek reconsideration of the issue by the en banc Court. Cf. United States v. Smith , 122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound by earlier panel holdings . . . unless and until they are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.”).
AFFIRMED. Case: 14-12749 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41219 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERT CHARLES BORKERT, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-94-CV-286

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Charles Borkert, federal inmate #43568-079, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest, stemming from the payment of legal fees by an unindicted coconspirator, which adversely affected counsel’s performance, specifically, counsel’s failure to advise Borkert about the disadvantages and benefits of a plea offer. We have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate arguments. InNo. 96-41219 -2- light of the credibility determinations by the court of the testimony from Borkert and counsel, we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Borkert failed to establish an actual conflict of interest which adversely affected counsel’s performance. See United States v. Placente , 81 F.3d 555, 558-59 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,088,972
<SECURITIES>                                 1,576,079
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,286,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                   338,771
<INVENTORY>                                    307,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,116,350
<PP&E>                                       2,871,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,262,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,420,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,226,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           581
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,811,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,420,352
<SALES>                                     10,091,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,726,297
<CGS>                                        4,674,390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,204,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,605,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                   574,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,031,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,031,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 410

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 410 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

#### § 410.25 Limitations on services of a podiatrist.

Medicare Part B pays for the services of a doctor of podiatric medicine, acting within the scope of his or her license, if the services would be covered as physicians' services when performed by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                     APACHE OFFSHORE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
                     BY APACHE CORPORATION, GENERAL PARTNER

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     I, G. Steven Farris, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September
30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and
that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.


/s/ G. Steven Farris
-----------------------------------------
By: G. Steven Farris
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
       and Chief Operating Officer

     I, Roger B. Plank, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September
30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and
that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.


/s/ Roger B. Plank
-----------------------------------------
By: Roger B. Plank
Title: Executive Vice President
       and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


          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 Veridicom International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      (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/ Paul Mann
      ---------------------------------------
      Paul Mann
      President (Principal Executive Officer)



      /s/ Bashir Jaffer
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


      March 31, 2005


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Veridicom International, Inc. and will be retained by Veridicom
International,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
§ 547.306 Licenses; general and specific. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
( b ) The term *general license* means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's website: *www.treasury.gov/ofac .*
( c ) The term *specific license* means any license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, but not set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's website: *www.treasury.gov/ofac .*
Note 1 to § 547.306 :
See § 501.801 of this chapter on licensing procedures.
[83 FR 57312, Nov. 15, 2018]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Iowa militiaman.**
 
2003Fall | 2004 Win| 2006 Spr | 2007 Sum | 2008 SumFallWin| 2009 SprSumWin
2010Spr | 2011 FallWin | 2012 FallWin | 2013 Spr
 
SuDoc Number:D 12.23/24:
Item Number:0356-A-27 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000784900
 
July 2, 2019
#### Jack O. CRUM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1891.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 23, 1981.

Jack 0. Crum, Jr., in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BASKIN, DANIEL S: PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Ersek v. State,*238 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
NO. 07-12-0165-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	AUGUST 15, 2012

	______________________________

	DAMIEN HERNANDEZ CORTEZ,

Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 62,862-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

**On Motion For Rehearing**

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Pending before the court is a motion for rehearing filed by Damien Hernandez Cortez.  We dismissed his appeal due to the absence of a properly executed certificate of right to appeal.   But in doing so, we also indicated that we would reconsider the decision should a valid certificate filed within the period allowed for rehearing.  None was.  Nor does the motion for rehearing indicate whether appellant attempted to secure such a document from the trial court.  

As indicated in our original order of dismissal, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) mandates that “the appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”  Some may question the rule’s sensibility.  Some may think the proper course would be to dispense with it.  Yet, as long as it exists, our judicial duty obligates us to abide by it.  

Simply put, we cannot pick and choose which rules to follow.  So too must we avoid resurrecting double standards wherein the court’s are free to ignore rules while requiring others to follow them.  Accordingly, we overrule the motion for rehearing.  Appellant is free to seek relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the forum that enacted the rule.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Publish.

2