alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.400 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements provisions in section 1115(d) of the Act, which requires all of the following: ( 1 ) The establishment of application requirements for Medicaid and CHIP demonstration projects that provide for: ( i ) A process for public notice and comment at the State level, including public hearings, sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input and that does not impose requirements that are in addition to, or duplicative of, requirements imposed under the Administrative Procedure Act, or requirements that are unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome with respect to State compliance.
( ii ) Requirements relating to all of the following: ( A ) The goals of the program to be implemented or renewed under the demonstration project.
( B ) Expected State and Federal costs and coverage projections of the State demonstration project.
( C ) Specific plans of the State to ensure the demonstration project will be in compliance with titles XIX or XXI of the Act.
( 2 ) A process for public notice and comment after a demonstration application is received by the Secretary that is sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input.
( 3 ) A process for the submission of reports to the Secretary by a State relating to the implementation of a demonstration project.
( 4 ) Periodic evaluation of demonstration projects by the Secretary.
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart sets forth a process for application and review of Medicaid and CHIP demonstration projects that provides for transparency and public participation.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lawrence C. JENKINS v. ORLEANS INDIGENT DEFENDANT PROGRAM.

No. 80-KH-2749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Lawrence C. Jenkins, applying for remedial writ. Parish of Orleans. No. 270-438.

Writ denied — O.I.D.P. counsel advised that he has furnished relator the transcript.
#### KOESTLER’S BAKERY, INC., and American Employers Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants, v. Jesse C. BOLAND, Claimant-Appellee.

No. 47621.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 26, 1974.

Watkins & Eager, Velia Ann Mayer, Jackson, for defendants-appellants.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Forrest W. Stringfellow, P. O. Gibson, Jr., Jackson, for claimant-appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice:

Koestler’s Bakery and American Employers Insurance Company appeal from a *206judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The judgment affirmed an order of the Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation Commission which directed the appellants to pay the claimant certain benefits for temporary total disability and temporary partial disability. The assignments of error question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the commission.

We have reviewed the record in detail and conclude there was ample evidence to support the finding of the commission with the exception of the order requiring the appellants to pay the claimant temporary total benefits from November 29, 1969, through December 30, 1969.

The appellee received an injury to his back in August 1968. In November 1969, though treated by another doctor in the interim, the claimant went to Dr. Walter Neill who performed a myelogram and thereafter operated upon him early in December. He was hospitalized for eight days, and about three weeks subsequently returned to his employment on a limited basis.

The record reveals that the claimant suffered no loss in salary from November 29 through December 30, 1969, the interval of his hospitalization and recovery. This opinion is restricted to that time.

A claim for disability benefits under workmen’s compensation statutes is not a suit to recover damages for an industrial injury, but rather is designed to afford compensation for loss of earnings resulting from such injury. By his testimony the claimant suffered no loss of earnings from November 29, 1969, through December 30, 1969. He was therefore not entitled to disability compensation for this interval. Thyer Mfg. Co. v. Mooney, 252 Miss. 629, 173 So.2d 652 (1965). *See also*Dunn, Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation, § 73 (2d ed. 1967).

The only exception to the above rule with which we are aware is that compensation benefits may be allowed when it affirmatively appears that the payment by the employer was a donation. 2 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 57.41 (1974). We discern no indication from the record that the payments by Koestler to the claimant from the date of his injury through his post-operative recovery period were anything other than salary in lieu of workmen’s compensation.

We conclude the circuit court erred in affirming that part of the finding of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which awarded disability payments during the period specified.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, WALKER and BROOM, j J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

[LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated January 22, 1998 included in this Form 10-K, unto
High Point Financial Corp.'s previously filed Registration Statement No. 2-97635
on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-12243 on Form S-2, Registration
Statement No. 33-18227 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-18226 on Form
S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-22288 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No.
33-37621 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-76296 on Form S-2.

                              /s/   Arthur Andersen LLP

                                    Arthur Andersen LLP

Roseland, NJ
March 30, 1998

                                      82
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-121081, 333-83444,333-93473, 33-12399, 333-39319, 33-78584, 33-40796, and 33-65081 on Form S-8 of our reportsrelating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule ofDionex Corporation and its subsidiaries, and management’s assessment on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting dated September 13,2006 (which report on theconsolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),*Share-Based Payment*), appearing in the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Dionex Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2006./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPSan Jose, California
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard Glen NAAS.

No. 81-K-0053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1981.

In re Richard Glen Naas, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Ouachita. No. 39666.

Writ denied. See Code of Cr. Procedure art. 465(A)(11) and 465(B).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3400 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3400

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be 
constructed at a site on 18th Street between Dodge and Douglas Streets 
   in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Roman L. Hruska Federal Building and 
                      United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed 
at a site on 18th Street between Dodge and Douglas Streets in Omaha, 
Nebraska, shall be known and designated as the ``Roman L. Hruska 
Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Roman L. Hruska Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Jeff Trandahl,

                                                Assistant to the Clerk.
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3472

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate current Federal

subsidies for alcoholic beverage promotions overseas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 1996

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. FATTAH) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate

current Federal subsidies for alcoholic beverage promotions overseas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘End Taxpayer Pro5 motion of Alcohol Overseas Act’’.
2

•HR 3472 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEV2 ERAGES.

3 Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

4 (7 U.S.C. 5623) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing:

6 ‘‘(h) PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF ALCOHOLIC

7 BEVERAGES.—None of the funds appropriated or other8 wise made available to carry out this section may be used

9 to promote the sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic bev10 erages.’’.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10067

Summary Calendar

TIMOTHY C. YOAKUM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

SABRE GLBL INCORPORATED,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC N o . 4:18

- CV

- 127

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See Rule 47.6.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

August 22, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 19-10067 Document: 00515088245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2019
§ 426.420 Retiring or revising an LCD under review. ( a ) A contractor may retire an LCD or LCD provision under review before the date the ALJ issues a decision regarding that LCD. Retiring an LCD or LCD provision under review has the same effect as a decision under § 426.460(b).
( b ) A contractor may revise an LCD under review to remove or amend the LCD provision listed in the complaint through the reconsideration process before the date the ALJ issues a decision regarding that LCD. Revising an LCD under review to remove the LCD provision in question has the same effect as a decision under § 426.460(b).
( c ) A contractor must notify the ALJ within 48 hours of— ( 1 ) Retiring an LCD or LCD provision that is under review; or
( 2 ) Issuing a revised version of the LCD that is under review.
( d ) If the contractor issues a revised LCD, the contractor forwards a copy of the revised LCD to the ALJ.
( e ) The ALJ must take the following actions upon receiving a notice that the contractor has retired or revised an LCD under review: ( 1 ) If, before the ALJ issues a decision, the ALJ receives notice that the contractor has retired the LCD or revised the LCD to completely remove the provision in question, the ALJ must dismiss the complaint and inform the aggrieved party(ies) who sought the review that he or she or they receive individual claim review without the retired/withdrawn provision(s).
( 2 ) If, before the ALJ issues a decision, the ALJ receives notice that the contractor has revised the LCD provision in question but has not removed it altogether, the ALJ must continue the review based on the revised LCD. In this case, the contractor must send a copy of the supplemental record to the ALJ and all parties. In that circumstance, the ALJ permits the aggrieved party to respond to the revised LCD and supplemental record.
#### Maeseo OWENS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 51610.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 12, 1979.

D. Talmage Allred, Jr., Collins, Travis Buckley, Laurel, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Carolyn B. Mills, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; L. D. Pittman, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 438.70 Stakeholder engagement when LTSS is delivered through a managed care program.

The State must ensure the views of beneficiaries, individuals representing beneficiaries, providers, and other stakeholders are solicited and addressed during the design, implementation, and oversight of a State's managed LTSS program. The composition of the stakeholder group and frequency of meetings must be sufficient to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement.
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 Quarterly Report of Global Casinos, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clifford L. Neuman, President and Todd Huss, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.  _/s/ Clifford L. Neuman Clifford L. Neuman President November 13, 2007  /s/ Todd Huss____________ Todd Huss Chief Financial Officer November 13, 2007
#### § 435.843 Medically needy resource standard: State plan requirements.

The State plan must specify the resource standard for the covered medically needy groups.

[58 FR 4933, Jan. 19, 1993]
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43754

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

TRISTA LEE CLAYTON

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 557

Filed: June 3, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed

.

Sara B . Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fl eming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Trista Lee Clayton pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to

deliver . I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)

. In exchange for her guilty pl ea, additional charges were dismissed

including an allegation that she was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Clayton to

a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. Clayton filed

an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Clayton appeals.2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cann ot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Clayton ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.528 Final settlement process and payment. ( a ) *Notice of final settlement.* After the calculation of the final settlement amount, CMS sends the MA organization a notice of final settlement. The notice of final settlement contains at least all of the following information: ( 1 ) A final settlement amount, which may be either an amount due to the MA organization, or an amount due from the MA organization, or $0 if nothing is due to or from the MA organization, for the contract that has been consolidated, nonrenewed, or terminated.
( 2 ) Relevant banking and financial mailing instructions for MA organizations that owe CMS a final settlement amount.
( 3 ) Relevant CMS contact information.
( 4 ) A description of the steps for requesting an appeal of the final settlement amount calculation, in accordance with the requirements specified in § 422.529.
( b ) *Request for an appeal.* An MA organization that disagrees with the final settlement amount has 15 calendar days from issuance of the notice of final settlement, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, to request an appeal of the final settlement amount under the process described in § 422.529. ( 1 ) If an MA organization agrees with the final settlement amount, no response is required.
( 2 ) If an MA organization disagrees with the final settlement amount but does not request an appeal within 15 calendar days from the date of the issuance of the notice of final settlement, CMS does not consider subsequent requests for appeal.
( c ) *Actions if an MA organization does not request an appeal.* ( 1 ) For MA organizations that are owed money by CMS, CMS remits payment to the MA organization within 60 calendar days from the date of the issuance of the notice of final settlement.
( 2 ) For MA organizations that owe CMS money, the MA organization is required to remit payment to CMS within 120 calendar days from issuance of the notice of final settlement. If the MA organization fails to remit payment within that 120-calendar-day period, CMS refers the debt owed to CMS to the Department of the Treasury for collection.
( d ) *Actions following submission of a request for appeal.* If an MA organization responds to the notice of final settlement disagreeing with the final settlement amount and requesting appeal, CMS conducts a review under the process described at§ 422.529.
( e ) *No additional payment adjustments.* After the final settlement amount is calculated and the notice of final settlement, as described under § 422.528(a), is issued to the MA organization, CMS no longer apply retroactive payment adjustments to the terminated, consolidated or nonrenewed contract and there are no adjustments applied to amounts used in the calculation of the final settlement amount.
[89 FR 30825, Apr. 23, 2024]
#### GREAT WESTERN SERUM COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[54 C. Cls., 203 ; 254 U. S., 240.]

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

A contractual obligation of the United States to pay the owner can not be implied from the seizure and destruction of antihog-cholera serum by agents of the Bureau of Animal Industry *468without agreement to purchase, nor from the act of March 4, 1915, c. 144, 38 Stat., 1115, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture in dealing with an emergency arising from animal disease to expend money in its eradication, including payment of claims growing out of purchase and destruction of materials contaminated or exposed to the disease.

Mr. Justice McReyNolds

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 6, 1920.
# C_2006053EN.01000301.xml

| 3.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/3

---

NEW NATIONAL SIDE OF EURO CIRCULATION COINS

NEW NATIONAL SIDE OF EURO CIRCULATION COINS

(2006/C 53/03)

Image

Euro circulation coins have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (1) with a view to informing anyone required to handle coins in the course of their work and the public at large. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 8 December 2003 (2), Member States and countries that have concluded a Monetary Agreement with the Community providing for the issuance of euro circulation coins are allowed to issue certain quantities of commemorative euro circulation coins on condition that not more than one new coin design is issued per country per year and that only the 2 EUR denomination is used. These coins have the technical features of normal euro circulation coins, but bear a commemorative design on the obverse national side.

1

2

Issuing State: Belgium

Subject of commemoration: Atomium

Factual description of the design: The inner part of the coin shows a representation of the ‘Atomium’. The engraver's initials ‘LL’ are depicted to the lower right hand side of the Atomium. Two mintmarks appear along the edge of the inner part, one on the right and one on the left of the lower ball of the Atomium. Twelve stars surround the design on the outer ring. The monogram ‘B’ appears at the top of the coin between two stars and the year of mintage ‘2006’ appears at the bottom of the circle between two stars.

Issue volume: 5 million coins

Approximate issue period: April 2006

Edge lettering: 2 **, repeated six times, alternately upright and inverted

---

(1)  See OJ C 373 of 28.12.2001, p. 1-30 for a reference to all national sides that were issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 8 December 2003 on changes in the design of national sides of euro coins. See also Commission Recommendation of 29 September 2003 on a common practice for changes to the design of national obverse sides of euro circulation coins (OJ L 264 of 15.10.2003, p. 38-39).

2

---
#### §§ 436.604-436.608 [Reserved]