alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Uranium and other trace elements in Devonian and Mississippian black shales in the central midcontinent area

By: Edwin R. Landis

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1107E

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 433.119 Conditions for reapproval; notice of decision. ( a ) CMS periodically reviews each system operation initially approved under § 433.114 of this subpart and reapproves it for FFP at 75 percent of expenditures if the following standards and conditions are met: ( 1 ) The system meets the requirements of § 433.112(b)(1), (3), (4), and (7) through (22).
( 2 ) The system meets the conditions of § 433.116 (d) through (j).
( 3 ) The system meets the standards, conditions, and performance standards for reapproval and the system requirements in part 11 of the State Medicaid Manual as periodically amended.
( 4 ) A State system must meet all of the requirements of this subpart within the appropriate period CMS determines should apply as required by § 433.123(b) of this subpart.
( b ) CMS may review an entire system operation or focus its review on parts of the operation. However, at a minimum, CMS will review standards, system requirements and other conditions of reapproval that have demonstrated weakness in a previous review or reviews.
( c ) After performing the review under paragraph (a) of this section, CMS will issue to the Medicaid agency a written notice informing the agency whether the system is reapproved or disapproved. If the system is disapproved, the notice will include the following information: ( 1 ) CMS's decision to reduce FFP for system operations from 75 percent to 50 percent of expenditures, beginning with the first day of the first calendar quarter after CMS issues the written notice to the State.
( 2 ) The findings of fact upon which the determination was made.
( 3 ) A statement that State claims in excess of the reduced FFP rate will be disallowed and that any such disallowance will be appealable to the Departmental Appeals Board.
[54 FR 41973, Oct. 13, 1989; 55 FR 1820, Jan. 19, 1990; 76 FR 21974, Apr. 19, 2011; 80 FR 75843, Dec. 4, 2015]
Home1998 Treaties and Agreements...Ghana (98-108) – Defense Cooperation Agreement

# 									Ghana (98-108) – Defense Cooperation Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

January 8, 1998

Defense:  Cooperation

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at Accra November 24, 1997 and January 8, 1998; entered into force January 8, 1998.
Download Agreements						 [711 KB]

Tags

GhanaTreaties

Back to Top
HomePlans, Performance, Budget...FY 2025 International Affairs Budget

# Fiscal Year 2025 International Affairs Budget

The FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification describes the funding required for State and USAID to carry out our missions worldwide.

View the full fiscal year 2025 Congressional Budget Justification: 

          - FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification
          - State and USAID Appendix 1 [9 MB]
          - State and USAID Appendix 2
          - State and USAID Appendix 3
          - Supplementary Tables – Foreign Operations 

Back to Top
§ 407.17 Automatic enrollment. ( a ) *Who is automatically enrolled.* An individual is automatically enrolled for SMI if he or she: ( 1 ) Resides in the United States, except in Puerto Rico;
( 2 ) Becomes entitled to hospital insurance under any of the provisions set forth in §§ 406.10 through 406.15 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Does not decline SMI enrollment.
( b ) *Opportunity to decline automatic enrollment.* ( 1 ) SSA will notify an individual that he or she is automatically enrolled under paragraph (a) of this section and grant the individual a specified period (at least 2 months after the month the notice is mailed) to decline enrollment.
( 2 ) The individual may decline enrollment by submitting to SSA or CMS a signed statement that he or she does not wish SMI.
( 3 ) The statement must be submitted before entitlement begins, or if later, within the time limits set in the notice of enrollment.
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Geology of the Moxie pluton in theMoosehead Lake--Jo-Mary Mountain area, Piscataquis County, Maine /

 
SuDoc: I 19.3:1340 
�Item Number0620
CGP system Number: 000994384 
 
Plate 1
 
Plate 1
Plate2

Plate3
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John BROWN.

No. 62089.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1978.

Barry Viosca, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant John Brown was charged by bill of information with two counts of attempted first degree murder in violation of LSA-R-.S. 14:27 and 14:30. After a trial by jury he was found guilty of both counts and later sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant appeals his conviction asserting twelve assignments of error and relying in brief upon ten of them. None of the assignments are meritorious.

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
- Office Home
- Developments
- General Resources
- Family Law
- Dispute Settlement
- Judicial Assistance
- Commercial Law
- Advisory Committee on Private International Law

HomeOffice of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law...General Resources – Private International Law

# 									General Resources – Private International Law							

Office of the Legal Adviser

### International Organizations

        - Hague Conference on Private International Law
        - International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT)
        - **United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (**USMCA) Advisory Committee
        - OAS Department of Legal Cooperation
        - OAS Foreign Trade Information System (SICE)
        - United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

### U.S. Organizations

        - American Branch, International Law Association
        - American Law Institute
        - American Society of International Law
        - International Law Institute
        - Section of International Law, American Bar Association
        - Uniform Law Commission (formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws)

### Treaty Information

        - State Department Office of Treaty Affairs
        - Treaties in Force (TIF)

Tags

International LawLawLegal AdviserPrivate International Law

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.806 State requirements. ( a ) *General requirements.* ( 1 ) In a State's PERM year, the PERM measurement will meet the requirements of section 1903(u) of the Act.
( 2 ) In the 2 years between each State's PERM year, the State is required to conduct one MEQC pilot, which will span parts of both off years. ( i ) The MEQC pilot review period will span 12 months of a calendar year, beginning the January 1 following the end of the State's PERM year through December 31.
( ii ) The MEQC pilot planning document described in § 431.814 is due no later than the first November 1 following the end of the State's PERM year.
( iii ) A State must submit its MEQC pilot findings and its plan for corrective action(s) by the August 1 following the end of its MEQC pilot review period.
( b ) *PERM measurement.* Requirements for the State PERM review process are set forth in subpart Q of this part.
( c ) *MEQC pilots.* MEQC pilot requirements are specified in §§ 431.812 through 431.820.
( d ) *Claims processing assessment system.* Except in a State that has an approved Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) under subpart C of part 433 of this subchapter, a State plan must provide for operating a Medicaid quality control claims processing assessment system that meets the requirements of §§ 431.830 through 431.836.
[82 FR 31182, July 5, 2017]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.5

                               ZYCAD CORPORATION               
                                                               
                            Certificate of Amendment           
                                      of                       
                          Certificate of Incorporation         
                            (Pursuant to the General           
                     Corporation Law of the State of Delaware) 


Phillips W. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas E. 
Klint, Secretary, of Zycad Corporation, a corporation organized and existing 
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 
do hereby certify.

     FIRST:  That at the duly constituted special meeting of the stockholders 
of said corporation held on July 10, 1997, the corporation adopted a 
resolution adopting such amendment, in accord with the provisions of the 
General Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware.

     SECOND:  That there has been duly adopted, in accordance with the 
provisions of the General corporation Law of the State of Delaware, an 
amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of Zycad Corporation which 
amends section 1 to read as follows:

           "The name of the corporation is Gatefield Corporation."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Zycad Corporation has caused this Certificate 
to be signed by Phillips W. Smith, its President and Chief Executive Officer, 
and attested by Douglas E. Klint, its Secretary, this 31st day of July, 1997.

                                        ZYCAD CORPORATION

                                        By: /s/ Phillips W. Smith
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Phillips W. Smith
                                           President and CEO

ATTEST

By: /s/ Douglas E. Klint
    ---------------------------------   
    Douglas E. Klint
    Secretary
#### Taylor *v.*White & Awbrey.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided May 30, 1911.

56 South. 2.)

1. *Evidence; Admissions; Infancy.*— Where the action was assumpsit and the defense was infancy, it was competent to prove certain statements made by the defendant to plaintiff before the making of the contract sued on, that the defendant was more than twenty-one years old. ,

2. *Infants; Action; Plea; Directing Verdict.*— Where the admissions of defendant offered in evidence tended to rebut his plea of infancy, the defendant was not entitled to have the verdict directed for him.

Appeal from Kandolph Circuit Court.

Hearyl before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

Assumpsit by White ■& Awbrey against W. G. Taylor. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

B. E. Taylor, for appellant.

The court erred in admitting evidence that the defendant said to the plaintiffs before making the contract sued on that he was twenty-one years old, as the defendant could not be boun d by any declaration made while a minor. — 59 Ala. 441; 51 Ala. 377; 86 Ala. 442; 71 Ala. 248; 124 Ala. *594574. The defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge because the evidence as to minority was undisputed.

R. J. Hooten, for appellee.

Defendant was estopped from pleading minority after having made the statement that he was over twenty-one years old. — 11 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 387; 14 Ala. 377; 37 Ala. 346; 11 Ala. 324; 76 Ala. 194; 107 Ala. 562. Declarations against interest are always admissible. — 11 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 1108; Jones on Evi. 824. The admissions made by the defendant raised such a conflict in the evidence as to require its submission to the jury.

PER CURIAM.-

Under the defendant’s plea of infancy, on which issue was joined, it was competent to prove statements made by the defendant to the plaintiffs, prior to his entering into the contract sued on, that he, the defendant, was over 21 years of age. The cour(t committed no error in overruling defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence.

This evidence being in, the general charge, requested by the defendant on the issue under the plea of infancy, was properly refused.

These are the only questions presented on the record, and, no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Note. — The above opinion was prepared by Chief Justice Dowdell, of the Supreme Court, before the transfer of the case to this court, and is adopted by this court.
# C_2006131EN.01003002.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/30

---

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-137/06)

(2006/C 131/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive.

1

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, p. 12

1

---
§ 419.93 Payment for an off-campus provider-based department of a rural emergency hospital. ( a ) Items and services furnished by an off-campus provider-based department of an REH, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, are not applicable items and services under sections 1833(t)(1)(B)(v) and (t)(21) of the Act and are paid as follows: ( 1 ) REH services furnished by an off-campus provider-based department of an REH are paid as described in § 419.92(a)(1).
( 2 ) Services that do not meet the definition of REH services under § 419.91 that are furnished by an off-campus provider-based department of an REH are paid as described under § 419.92(c) or, if applicable, § 419.92(e).
( b ) For the purpose of this section, “off-campus provider-based department of an REH” means a “department of a provider” (as defined at § 413.65(a)(2) of this chapter) that is not located on the campus (as defined in § 413.65(a)(2) of this chapter) or within the distance described in such definition from a “remote location of a hospital” (as defined in § 413.65(a)(2) of this chapter) that meets the requirements for provider-based status under § 413.65 of this chapter.
[87 FR 72292, Nov. 23, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 82181, Nov. 22, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,378,506
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    136,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,153,661
<PP&E>                                         44,022,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,422,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 46,944,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,328,673
<BONDS>                                        27,262,651
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       38,666
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   46,944,608
<SALES>                                        10,013,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,013,761
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,219,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,256,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,462,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,462,102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,462,102)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.064)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.064)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006154EN.01001403.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-247/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 154/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 03.09.2005.

1

---
#### Gary Leroy NANK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-2318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 11, 1981.

John Thor White, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following the execution of a search warrant at his home. He contends on appeal that the evidence seized should have been suppressed because the officers violated Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1979) when executing the search warrant. We agree and reverse.

The evidence was undisputed that the police officers opened an unlocked screen door and stepped into the house without first knocking and giving notice of their authority and purpose as required by section 933.09. *See Benefield v. State,*160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964). Failure to follow this procedure renders the search illegal. This is so even where, as here, the state contended at the suppression hearing that appellant would have attempted to dispose of the contraband if the officers announced their presence, since no evidence was introduced to support this contention. *State v. Collier,*270 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Accordingly, we hold that it was error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress. Appellant’s judgment and sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia and the order placing him on probation for possession of marijuana are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to discharge appellant.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.