alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Montgomery *v.*Gilmer.

*Violating Municipal Ordinance.*

(Decided May 30, 1911.

Rehearing denied June 14, 1911.

56 South. 264.)

*Mttnidpal Corporations; Ordinances; Street Taxes.*— An ordinance requiring the inhabitants of a city to pay a street tax is authorized by section 1336, Code 1907, and hence, is not void for want of power in the city to enact it.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.

M. N. Gilmer was convicted in the recorder’s court of the city of Montgomery for a violation of the street tax *527ordinance and appeals to the city court of Montgomery where a judgment was entered acquitting him of the charge and the city appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

C. P. McIntyre, for appellant.

Counsel uses the same argument and cites the same authority as is cited in his brief in the case of *Gity of Montgomery v. Bare-*field, next above.

Arrington & Houghton, for appellee.

Counsel uses the same argument and cites the same authorities as in their briefs filed in the case of *Gity of Montgomery v. Barefield,*next above. They insist on rehearing, however, that the third ground of demurrer raises the proposition that the ordinance exempts corporations and that this point should have been decided. In support thereof they cite *Bir. W. W. Go. v. The State,*159 Ala. 618. They insist that the ordinance is void because it makes the failure to pay street tax a criminal offense, which they insist was not authorized by the Legislature. — 28 Cyc. 1728; 37 Cyc. 724.

PELHAM, J.

The appellee was tried and convicted in the recorder’s court of the city of Montgomery for violation of or failure to pay a street tax, as provided by an ordinance of .the city of Montgomery (appellant). An appeal was prosecuted to the city court of Montgomery, where theije was judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant; and the city brings the case to this court by an appeal from the judgment there rendered.

This case involves the validity of practically the same ordinance as was held by this court to be valid in the case of *City of Montgomery v. J. P. Barefield, Infra,*56 South. 260, at the present term of the court. The differences in the two ordinances are inconsequential, so far as a determination of this case on the proposi*528tions presented by the record is concerned. Section 1336 of the Code of 1907 (municipal laws) does not authorize the cities to impose road duty, but specially exempts the inhabitants of any municipality from working the roads, and authorizes the city authorities to require of its inhabitants a street tax for the support of the streets within the corporate limits. This the ordinance in question does, and by so doing does not exceed the authority given.

The other questions presented were disposed of adversely to the appellee in the case referred to, and following the rulings made in that case ( *City of Montgomery c. Barefield, supra),*the judgment of the trial court is Reversed, as the demurrers to the complaint were improperly sustained, and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1170 Program specific review process: Continuation of enrollment.

#### § 457.1170 Program specific review process: Continuation of enrollment.

A State must ensure the opportunity for continuation of enrollment and benefits pending the completion of review of the following:

(a) A suspension or termination of enrollment, including a decision to disenroll for failure to pay cost sharing; and

(b) A failure to make a timely determination of eligibility at application and renewal.

[89 FR 22877, Apr. 2, 2024]
§ 441.251 Definitions. As used in this subpart: *Hysterectomy* means a medical procedure or operation for the purpose of removing the uterus.
*Institutionalized individual* means an individual who is ( a ) involuntarily confined or detained, under a civil or criminal statute, in a correctional or rehabilitative facility, including a mental hospital or other facility for the care and treatment of mental illness; or
( b ) confined, under a voluntary commitment, in a mental hospital or other facility for the care and treatment of mental illness.
*Mentally incompetent individual* means an individual who has been declared mentally incompetent by a Federal, State, or local court of competent jurisdiction for any purpose, unless the individual has been declared competent for purposes which include the ability to consent to sterilization.
*Sterilization* means any medical procedure, treatment, or operation for the purpose of rendering an individual permanently incapable of reproducing.
No. 74-6470.

#### Hemstreet *v.*State Personnel Board.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.1





berrydunnlogoa21.jpg














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) of Union Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2018 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, included in the 2017 Annual Report to Shareholders of Union Bankshares, Inc.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-209815) pertaining to the Union Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-214858) pertaining to the Union Bankshares, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated March 16, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, incorporated therein by reference, of Union Bankshares, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2017.





berrydunnsignaturea21.jpg


Portland, Maine


March 12, 2019


Vermont Registration No. 92-0000278



























































berrydunnfootera04.jpg
§ 441.22 Nurse practitioner services. With respect to nurse practitioner services that meet the definition of § 440.166(a) and the requirements of either § 440.166(b) or § 440.166(c), the State plan must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Provide that nurse practitioner services are furnished to the categorically needy.
( b ) Specify whether those services are furnished to the medically needy.
( c ) Provide that services furnished by a nurse practitioner, regardless of whether the nurse practitioner is under the supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other health care provider, may— ( 1 ) Be reimbursed by the State Medicaid agency through an independent provider agreement between the State and the nurse practitioner; or
( 2 ) Be paid through the employing provider.
[60 FR 19862, Apr. 21, 1995]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Limited Resumption of Arctic Council Cooperation

# 									Joint Statement on Limited Resumption of Arctic Council Cooperation							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

June 8, 2022

*The governments of Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States have issued the following joint statement.*

*Begin text:*

In response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a flagrant violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, based on international law, the other Arctic Council founding states – Canada, Finland, Iceland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United States – on March 3 announced a pause in their participation in the Arctic Council. Since March 3, representatives from these States have examined modalities to allow a resumption of the work in the Arctic Council.

We remain convinced of the enduring value of the Arctic Council for circumpolar cooperation and reiterate our support for this forum and its important work.

We intend to implement a limited resumption of our work in the Arctic Council, in projects that do not involve the participation of the Russian Federation. These projects, contained in the workplan approved by all eight Arctic States at the Reykjavik ministerial, are a vital component of our responsibility to the people of the Arctic, including Indigenous Peoples.

We continue to examine additional modalities to allow us to further continue the Council’s important work.

*End text.*

Tags

ArcticBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCanadaDenmarkFinlandIcelandNorwayOffice of Ocean and Polar AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSwedenThe Ocean and Polar AffairsUkraine

Back to Top
#### Olin Albert JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-958.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary M. Carman, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was informed against for (1) resisting an officer with violence to his person, and (2) petit larceny. He was tried by jury, found guilty of both counts and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary for the first count. Imposition of sentence on the petit larceny count was withheld.

Defendant-appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the charges against him based on the alleged illegality of his arrest. We disagree.

We find that the arrest of the appellant was valid as the record clearly demonstrates that the arresting officer was acting pursuant to authority granted to him by the arrest statute, Fla.Stat. § 901.-15, F.S.A. See also Rosenberg v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 68.

Turning to appellant’s second point on appeal that the trial court erred m refusing to give a jury instruction on impeachment requested by defense counsel, we find this contention to be lacking in merit because the request therefor was untimely and the instruction itself redundant as it was fully covered in the general charge to the jury. See CrPR 3.390, 33 F.S.A.; York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So.2d 767; Pabst v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 329.

For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment and sentence herein appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.
Description of compensation arrangements for non-employee directors



 Exhibit 10.12 
 DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 For the period beginning on the date of the
2008 Annual Meeting until the 2009 Annual Meeting, directors who are not employees of State Street or the Bank received the following compensation: 
  

	 	•	 	 Annual retainer—$75,000, payable at their election in shares of the Registrant’s common stock or in cash; 


  

	 	•	 	 Meeting fees—$1,500 for each Board and committee meeting attended, payable in cash; 


  

	 	•	 	 A deferred stock award in an amount equal to $110,000 divided by the closing price of the stock on April 30, 2008 (together with additional stock amounts
to reflect dividend and distribution amounts paid during deferral); 


  

	 	•	 	 An additional annual retainer for the Lead Director of $25,000, payable at his or her election in shares of the Registrant’s common stock or in cash;



  

	 	•	 	 An additional annual retainer for the Examining and Audit Committee Chair of $25,000, payable at his or her election in shares of the Registrant’s common stock
or in cash; 


  

	 	•	 	 An additional annual retainer for each other Committee Chair of $15,000, payable at their election in shares of the Registrant’s common stock or in cash;



  

	 	•	 	 An additional annual retainer for each member of the Examining and Audit Committee, other than the Chair, of $10,000 payable at their election in shares of the
Registrant’s common stock or in cash; and 


  

	 	•	 	 A pro-rated annual retainer and deferred stock award for any director who was elected to the Board after the 2008 Annual Meeting. 


 Pursuant to State Street’s Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors, directors may elect to defer the receipt of 50% or 100% of their (i) retainers,
(ii) meeting fees, and/or (iii) annual award of shares of common stock. Directors also may elect to receive all of their retainers in cash or shares of common stock. Directors who elect to defer the cash payment of their retainers and/or
meeting fees may also make notional investment elections with respect to such deferrals, with a choice of one or more of five notional investment fund returns, including one that tracks the performance of State Street common stock. To the extent the
amounts are deferred, they will be paid (i) on the date elected by the director, either the date of his or her termination of service on the Board or a future date specified, and (ii) in the form elected by the director as either a lump
sum or in installment over a two- to ten-year period. 
 For this period, six directors elected to receive their annual retainers in cash, and all other
outside directors elected to receive their annual retainers in shares of common stock. Eleven directors elected to defer all or a portion of their compensation under the plan.
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.1200 Basis, scope, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements the following sections of the Act: ( 1 ) Section 2101(a) of the Act, which provides that the purpose of Title XXI is to provide funds to States to enable them to initiate and expand the provision of child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children in an effective and efficient manner.
( 2 ) Section 2103(f)(3) and 2107(e)(1)(M) of the Act, which apply certain provisions of Title XIX related to Medicaid managed care to CHIP.
( 3 ) Sections 2107(b) and 2107(e)(2) of the Act, which relate to program integrity.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth requirements for the provision of services through MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, and PCCM entities, as defined in § 457.10.
( c ) *Applicability.* The requirements of this subpart apply to child health assistance provided under a separate child health program operating a managed care delivery system. Regulations relating to managed care that are applicable to a Medicaid expansion program are found at part 438 of this chapter.
( d ) *Applicability dates.* States will not be held out of compliance with the following requirements of this subpart prior to the dates established at §§ 438.3(v), 438.10(j), 438.16(f), 438.68(h), 438.206(d), 438.207(g), 438.310(d), 438.505(a)(2), 438.602(j), and 438.608(f) of this chapter, so long as they comply with the corresponding standard(s) of this subpart, edition revised as of July 9, 2024. States will not be held out of compliance with the requirement at § 457.1207 to post comparative summary results of enrollee experience surveys by managed care plan annually on State websites, nor the requirement for States to evaluate annual enrollee experience survey results as part of the State's annual analysis of network adequacy as described at § 457.1230(b), so long as they comply with the corresponding standard(s) of this subpart, 2 years after July 9, 2024.
[81 FR 27897, May 6, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 41284, May 10, 2024]
#### In re the Interest and ADOPTION OF T. R. B., a minor.

No. 74-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Joseph William du Rocher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 436.500 Scope.

This subpart prescribes categorical requirements for determining the eligibility of both categorically needy and medically needy individuals specified in subparts B, C, and D of this part.
Update 

ields [ 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 3 0 94 

The known number of products in cornpl iance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $23,970 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ I ' 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

9 
YES

 0 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 8 

YES* 0 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 

YES 0 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransp01iation? @) 

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

10
# C_2006096EN.01003701.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

---

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Chevalier Carmana and Others v Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case F-14/06)

(2006/C 96/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Giovanna Chevalier Carmana (Paris, France), Alice Coda (Paris, France), Jacqueline Doucet (Paris, France), Françoise Kluss (Ollioules, France) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

| — | consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

1

---
#### § 442.13 Effective date of provider agreement.

The effective date of a provider agreement with an NF or ICF/IID is determined in accordance with the rules set forth in § 431.108.

[62 FR 43936, Aug. 18, 1997]
§ 433.74 Reporting requirements. ( a ) Beginning with the first quarter of Federal fiscal year 1993, each State must submit to CMS quarterly summary information on the source and use of all provider-related donations (including all bona fide and presumed-to-be bona fide donations) received by the State or unit of local government, and health care-related taxes collected. Each State must also provide any additional information requested by the Secretary related to any other donations made by, or any taxes imposed on, health care providers. States' reports must present a complete, accurate, and full disclosure of all of their donation and tax programs and expenditures.
( b ) Each State must provide the summary information specified in paragraph (a) of this section on a quarterly basis in accordance with procedures established by CMS.
( c ) Each State must maintain, in readily reviewable form, supporting documentation that provides a detailed description and legal basis for each donation and tax program being reported, as well as the source and use of all donations received and taxes collected. This information must be made available to Federal reviewers upon request.
( d ) If a State fails to comply with the reporting requirements contained in this section, future grant awards will be reduced by the amount of FFP CMS estimates is attributable to the sums raised by tax and donation programs as to which the State has not reported properly, until such time as the State complies with the reporting requirements. Deferrals and/or disallowances of equivalent amounts may also be imposed with respect to quarters for which the State has failed to report properly. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, FFP for those expenditures will be released when the State complies with all reporting requirements.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3036

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that the offices for

management, policy, and other functions associated with the educational

assistance programs of the Education Service of the Department of

Veterans Affairs be in the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1996

Mr. MONTGOMERY (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. BUYER, and Ms. WATERS)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that

the offices for management, policy, and other functions

associated with the educational assistance programs of

the Education Service of the Department of Veterans

Affairs be in the District of Columbia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3036 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES OF

2 THE EDUCATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

3 VETERANS AFFAIRS.

4 (a) LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—

5 Chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by

6 adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 7705. Management, policy, and operations func8 tions associated with the educational as9 sistance programs of the Education Serv10 ice

11 ‘‘The offices of Education Procedures Systems, Edu12 cation Operations, and Education Policy and Program Ad13 ministration, and any successor to any such office, of the

14 Education Service of the Veterans Benefit Administration

15 of the Department shall be in the District of Columbia.’’.

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

17 for such chapter 77 is amended by adding after the item

18 relating to section 7703 the following new item:

‘‘7705. Management, policy, and operations functions associated with the educational assistance programs of the Education Service.’’.

Æ