alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Iran

595 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 29, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 29, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 21, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 21, 2024Washington, DC 
        -    DipNote  		Countering the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction	  February 21, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, And Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar At the Munich Security Conference	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 17, 2024Bayerischer HofMunich, Germany 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Séjourné	  February 17, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Persons Tied to Network Smuggling U.S. Technology to Central Bank of Iran	  Matthew MillerFebruary 14, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 13, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 13, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Former Iranian-Owned Boeing Aircraft Successfully Returned to the United States	  February 12, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2024	  Vedant PatelFebruary 8, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani  At a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 6, 2024Diwan AnnexDoha, Qatar 

previous page1…45678…60next page

Back to Top
§ 438.106 Liability for payment. Each MCO, PIHP, and PAHP must provide that its Medicaid enrollees are not held liable for any of the following: ( a ) The MCO's, PIHP's, or PAHP's debts, in the event of the entity's insolvency.
( b ) Covered services provided to the enrollee, for which— ( 1 ) The State does not pay the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP; or
( 2 ) The State, or the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP does not pay the individual or health care provider that furnished the services under a contractual, referral, or other arrangement.
( c ) Payments for covered services furnished under a contract, referral, or other arrangement, to the extent that those payments are in excess of the amount that the enrollee would owe if the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP covered the services directly.
| (1)    | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      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/ Dean      Antonis                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dean      Antonis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| Treasurer      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Date:      May 20, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
#### James G. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Evelyn J. MARSHALL, Appellee.

No. 81-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 23, 1981.

*1183Preston DeVilbiss, Jr., of Adams, DeVil-biss, Vorbeck & Wood, Sarasota, for appellant.

L. Norman Vaughan-Birch of Kirk, Pinkerton, Savary, Carr & Strode, P. A., Sarasota, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

Appellant attacks the jurisdiction of the court which awarded a temporary change in custody of his minor child.

The parties divorced in Alachua County, and appellee received custody of the minor child. Thereafter, custody of the child was changed to appellant, but appellee is now seeking to regain custody. Since appellant and the child live in Sarasota County, and appellee has moved to Manatee County, she filed the petition for modification in Sarasota County. The court held a hearing shortly after the filing of the petition and then entered the order temporarily changing custody to her. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).

Appellant contends that the Sarasota County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for change of custody. He is clearly correct. *Wells v. Ward,*314 So.2d 138 (Fla.1975); *Bailey v. Malone,*389 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); *Poliak v. Poliak,*235 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979), which permits the parties to a dissolution to apply for modification of alimony or support in the county in which either of them resides, omits any reference to changes of custody. There is simply no authority for appellee to seek a modification of custody except in the Circuit Court of Alachua County which is the court that had original jurisdiction over the dissolution proceedings.

REVERSED.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7514

BYRON BEARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; DENNIS BIDWELL, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

2187-AMD)

Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 22, 1998

Before HALL, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Byron Beard, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Ann Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Larry David Adams, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Byron Beard appeals the district court's order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.

Beard v. Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-97-2187-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 8,

1997). A defendant may not receive credit against his federal sentence for time spent in state custody prior to the date the federal

sentence commences if that time has been credited against another

sentence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3585(b) (West 1985); McClain v. Bureau

of Prisons, 9 F.3d 503, 505 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we need

not address whether Beard's continued state confinement was the

exclusive product of the federal detainer lodged against him

because he received credit for time spent in state custody against

his state sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
- PEPFAR Solutions Home
- Solutions
- Resources and Tools

HomePEPFAR Solutions Home...Loss to Follow-Up Tool: Tracking and Tracing HIV Patients

# 									Loss to Follow-Up Tool: Tracking and Tracing HIV Patients							

January 7, 2019

**WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?**

Loss at each step of the HIV diagnostic and treatment cascade has been well documented. Many newly-identified people living with HIV (PLHIV) fail to link to or enroll in care and initiate treatment, and those on antiretroviral treatment (ART) often miss appointments and fail to return to care/treatment. Addressing poor linkage and retention is critical for achieving HIV/AIDS epidemic control. Successful tracking and tracing of PLHIV who have failed to initiate treatment or failed to return to care/treatment will allow targeted interventions to help return those patients back to treatment, document their treatment in another setting, or document their death or loss to follow up (LTFU).

**WHAT IS THE TOOL?**

Identifying and locating PLHIV who fail to link to care and initiate ART or who fail to be retained in care/on treatment are important interventions to ensure all PLHIV get on and remain on ART. This tool outlines procedures for tracking and tracing **PLHIV who have failed to link to treatment** or **those who have missed appointments/are LTFU**. Procedures for identifying, following non-linkers and those not in care/on treatment through phone and home contacts, and documenting outcomes are outlined. Individual level follow-up allows for targeted support to PLHIV needing to (re-)enter care and treatment. In addition, documentation of individual outcomes is necessary to obtain accurate numbers of patients who are actually not in care and on treatment and the outcomes of those who are LTFU including silent transfers to other clinics, death, those who are unable to be located, not traced, or returned to care/clinic. These outcomes are required for the TX_ML MER indicator. Best practice procedures for phone and home contacts are provided, as well as sample tools from partners for recording tracking and tracing activities.

**Tracking and Tracing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)**

**Example Tracking Record from Zimbabwe**

**Tracking and Tracing Form (*Sample B*)**

**Example SMS Message (*Sample C*)**

 

Tags

Global HealthHIV/AIDSPEPFAR Solutions

Back to Top
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 Exhibit 4(b)(1)
 



                                 March 24, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:    Texas Utilities Company
       1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K
       -------------------------------

Gentlemen:

   Pursuant to the exemption afforded by Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation
S-K, Texas Utilities Company (Company) is not filing as exhibits to its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for 1997 instruments with respect to its long-term debt of
the Company and/or its subsidiaries.  These instruments include (i) agreements
with respect to pollution control revenue bonds and (ii) agreements with respect
to senior notes.  Each item of long-term debt referenced above does not exceed
10% of the total assets of the Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.  Reference is made to Note 8 to Consolidated Financial Statements
(included in Appendix A of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1997).

   The Company agrees to furnish a copy of the above instruments to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


                                              Sincerely,



 
                                       /s/    J. W. Pinkerton
                              -------------------------------------------
                                              J. W. Pinkerton
                              Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
§ 447.21 Reduction of payments to providers. If a provider seeks to collect from an individual (or any financially responsible relative or representative of that individual) an amount that exceeds an amount specified under § 447.20(a)— ( a ) The Medicaid agency may provide for a reduction of any payment amount otherwise due to the provider in addition to any other sanction available to the agency; and
( b ) The reduction may be equal to up to three times the amount that the provider sought to collect in violation of § 447.20(a).
[55 FR 1433, Jan. 16, 1990]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–155 

VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 1777 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE VETO OF H.R. 1777, THE ‘‘PRESIDENTIAL 

ALLOWANCE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2016’’ 

JULY 25, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the House of Representatives: 

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1777, the 

‘‘Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2016,’’ which would 

amend the Former Presidents Act of 1958. 

I agree with H.R. 1777’s goal of reforming the pensions and allowances provided to former Presidents so as to reduce unnecessary 

costs to taxpayers. But if implemented as drafted, the bill would 

have unintended consequences. It would impose onerous and unreasonable burdens on the offices of former Presidents, including by 

requiring the General Services Administration to immediately terminate salaries and benefits of office employees and to remove furnishings and equipment from offices. It would withdraw the General Services Administration’s ability to administer leases and negatively impact operations, with unanticipated implications for the 

protection and security of former Presidents. 

My Administration will work with the authors of the bill and 

other leaders in the Congress, in consultation with the offices of 

former Presidents, to explore the best ways to achieve these goals 

going forward. If the Congress returns the bill having appropriately 

addressed these concerns, I will sign it. For now, I must veto the 

bill. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 22, 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00065-CR

Charles James Snyder

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 8

of Tarrant County (1295355)

October 2, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s 

judgment and render a judgment of acquittal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(c), 43.3, 

51.2(d).

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000065 29-JUN-2017 08:45 AM
#### BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the MIAMI BEACH EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Appellants, v. Larry BORNSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 74-518.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appellants.

Burnett Roth, Miami Beach, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CÜRIAM.

The City appeals a final judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus upon the petition of the appellee, Larry Born-stein. The trial court found as follows:

> “It is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner is an eligible employee member of the Miami Beach Employees Retirement System, as defined in Ordinance No. 1901, Article III, Section 3.01 of the Ordinance of the City of Miami Beach, who is entitled to prosecute his application for a service-connected disability retirement and present supporting evidence thereof before the Defendants pursuant to Ordinance No. 1901, Article *238VII, Section 7.06(c), Ordinances of the City of Miami Beach.”

The gist of the City’s argument is that Bornstein’s application for a hearing before the Employees Retirement Board was on its face totally defective because it alleged that his condition was an “accident and disease.” See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Broadway, 110 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1940).

We agree with the trial judge that it will be more appropriate to determine the nature of the employee’s condition and his eligibility for benefits after a hearing is conducted. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Co., 224 U.S. 474, 32 S.Ct. 556, 56 L.Ed. 849 (1912). Compare Williamson v. State ex rel. Neill, 112 Fla. 840, 151 So. 51 (1933). We therefore affirm.

We do not by this holding determine that appellant’s petition makes a prima fa-cie case for compensation but simply that the trial court did not err in determining that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the Board.

Affirmed.
#### Bernard Reilly, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court, sixth district, borough of Manhattan. ' — ■

James Nixon, for respondent.

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

Freedman, P. J.

This is an action to recover for damages to a wagon of the plaintiff, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The driver of plaintiff’s wagon was going west on One Hundred and Twenty-sixth street of this city. As he arrived at the crossing at Eighth avenue a car of the defendant was going north. The driver swung the heads of his horses slightly towards the left to avoid this car, and after it had passed him and when his horses were upon the easterly track he saw a south-bound car approaching at least one-half a block distant. The crossing was clear and he was driving upon a fast walk.

The horses and forward part of the wagon had cleared the westerly track when the car struck the hind wheel of the wagon and carried it against a pillar of the elevated railroad structure and damaged it, for which this action is brought. These facts were testified to by the driver and are practically undisputed. The only ground urged for a reversal of the judgment upon this appeal is that the plaintiff’s driver was guilty of contributory negligence. The testimony was sufficient to raise the question of fact for the determination of the court upon the question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s driver, it being the province of the trial judge to pass upon such question in the absence of a jury.

The accidefit occurred at a crossing, where the rights of the plaintiff to the use of the street for travel were equal to those of the *815defendant. The case comes' well within the rule laid down in Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622, “ Where, from the circumstances shown, inferences are to be drawn which are not certain and uncontrovertible and may be differently made by different minds, it is for the jury to make them.”

The court found upon the questions presented for his determination, in favor of the plaintiff, and it not being shown that injustice had been done, the judgment must be affirmed.

MacLeah, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3215

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to repeal the provision relating to Federal employees contracting or trading

with Indians.

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

HR 3215 RDS

1 SECTION 1. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CONTRACTING OR

2 TRADING WITH INDIANS.

3 (a) REPEAL.—Section 437 of title 18, United States

4 Code, is repealed.

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec6 tions at the beginning of chapter 23 of title 18, United

7 States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to

8 section 437.

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub10 section (a) shall—

11 (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this

12 Act; and

13 (2) apply with respect to any contract obtained,

14 and any purchase or sale occurring, on or after the

15 date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### Alex Zanfretti, Respondent, *v.*Frank Kenebel, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Eew York, borough of Manhattan, for the first district.

Gilbert W. Minor, for appellant.

William E. Cook, for respondent.

*840Leventritt, J.

There is no question of law involved in this appeal. The appellant invokes a substitution of our judgment for that of the trial justice respecting the weight of evidence. The plaintiff's claim was established by convincing proof. To the extent that the defendant presented satisfactory evidence of his counterclaim, it was allowed and the plaintiff's recovery correspondingly reduced. The record disclosed only positive assertion, emphatic denial and direct contradiction.

In that situation we cannot interfere, as the disposition of the issues was eminently just.

Judgment must be affirmed.

Fbeeuman, P. J., and MaoLean, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
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 results of operations
          of the Company.


                                  /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Paul W. Mobley
                                  Chief Financial Officer of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                  March 15, 2005