alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 426.465 Appealing part or all of an ALJ's decision. ( a ) *Circumstances under which an aggrieved party may appeal part or all of an ALJ's decision.* An aggrieved party (including one or more aggrieved parties named in a joint complaint and an aggrieved party who is part of a consolidated LCD review) may appeal to the Board any part of an ALJ's decision that does the following: ( 1 ) States that a provision of an LCD is valid under the reasonableness standard; or
( 2 ) Dismisses a complaint regarding an LCD (except as prohibited in paragraph (b) of this section).
( b ) *Circumstance under which a contractor or CMS may appeal part or all of an ALJ's decision.* A contractor or CMS may appeal to the Board any part of an ALJ's decision that states that a provision (or provisions) of an LCD is (are) unreasonable.
( c ) *Stay of an implementation pending appeal.* ( 1 ) If an ALJ's decision finds a provision or provisions of an LCD unreasonable, an appeal by a contractor or CMS stays implementation as described under § 426.460(b) until the Board issues a final decision.
( 2 ) The appeal request must be submitted to the Board in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) *Circumstances under which an ALJ's decision may not be appealed.* An ALJ's decision dismissing a complaint is not subject to appeal in either of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The contractor has retired the LCD provision(s) under review.
( 2 ) The aggrieved party who filed the complaint has withdrawn the complaint.
( e ) *Receipt of the appeal by the Board.* Unless there is good cause shown, an appeal described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section must be filed with the Board within 30 days of the date the ALJ's decision was issued.
( f ) *Filing an appeal.* ( 1 ) To file an appeal described in paragraph (a) of this section, an aggrieved party, who sought LCD review, a contractor, or CMS must send the following to the Board: ( i ) The full names and addresses of the parties, including the name of the LCD.
( ii ) The date of issuance of the ALJ's decision.
( iii ) The docket number that appears on the ALJ's decision.
( iv ) A statement identifying the part(s) of the ALJ's decision that are being appealed.
( 2 ) If an appeal described in paragraph (a) of this section is filed with the Board later than the date described in paragraph (c) of this section, it must include a rationale stating why the Board must accept the late appeal.
( 3 ) An appeal described in paragraph (a) of this section must include a statement explaining why the ALJ's decision should be reversed.
HomePanama

# Panama

159 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Panamanian President Cortizo	  June 27, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing on Food Security across Latin America with Jose Fernandez, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment	  Jose W. FernandezJune 23, 2022 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Additional $314 Million for U.S. Humanitarian Response to the Venezuela Regional Crisis	  June 10, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Panel Discussion with Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, Panamanian Foreign Minister Erika Mouynes, And Civil Society Representatives At the Civil Society Forum	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 8, 2022Sheraton Grand HotelLos Angeles, California 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro At a Meeting of the Summit Implementation Review Group	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 8, 2022Los Angeles Convention CenterLos Angeles, California 
        -    Press Statement  		World Ocean Day  	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 8, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		The United States, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama Sign a Memorandum of Understanding in Support of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR)	  June 7, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Panama	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Juan Gonzalez, National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere and Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs	  Brian A. NicholsJune 1, 2022 
        -    DipNote  		On Both Sides of the Canal – From a Diplomatic Treaty to Prosperous Relations With Panama	  April 21, 2022 

previous page1…56789…16next page

Back to Top
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Notice of Privacy Practices

HomeBureau of Medical Services...Leadership – Bureau of Medical Services

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Medical Services					

4											Items									

          -  							Otto, Dr. Richard						Chief Medical OfficerBureau of Medical Services 
          -  							Noor, Dr. Ayan H. Ahmed						Principal Deputy Chief Medical Officer Bureau of Medical Services 
          -  							Jones, Dr. Geoffrey						Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Clinical ServicesBureau of Medical Services 
          -  							Bergquist, Dr. Harveen						Director of Operational and Protective Medicine Bureau of Medical Services 

Back to Top
First Amendment to the Officer Employment Agreement - Bradley J. Holiday



 Exhibit 10.6 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Officer Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into effective January 26, 2009, by and between
Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Bradley J. Holiday (“Employee”). 
 A.
The Company and Employee are parties to that certain Officer Employment Agreement entered into as of May 1, 2008, (the “Agreement”). 
 B. The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and other consideration, the value and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1. Term. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to extend the termination date of the Agreement to April 30, 2010. 
 2. Expenses and Benefits. 
 5(b) Paid Time Off. Employee acknowledges that, effective
February 2, 2009, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable, the Company’s Paid Time Off Program, as applied to officers, has been temporarily modified for 2009 to reduce the rate of Paid Time Off accrual for Employee by ten
(10) days on an annualized basis and prorated for the remainder of 2009. 
 5(d) Retirement. Employee acknowledges that the
Company’s 401(k) retirement investment plan has been amended for 2009 to eliminate the Company matching of 401(k) contributions for all employees, including officers. 
 Employee acknowledges that these temporary changes do not constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that these changes shall
remain in effect during 2009 or until further written notice from the Company without the need for further amendment to the Agreement. 
 3.
But for the amendments contained herein, and any other written amendments properly executed by the parties, the Agreement shall otherwise remain unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

							
	EMPLOYEE	 		 	COMPANY
			
		 		 	Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation
				
	/s/ Bradley J. Holiday	 		 	By: 	 	/s/ Chris Carroll
	Bradley J. Holiday	 		 		 	 Chris Carroll
 Senior Vice President, Human Resources


				
	Dated:     January 28,
2009                                         
            	 		 		 	Dated:     February 3,
2009
§ 456.431 Continued stay review required. ( a ) The UR plan must provide for a review of each beneficiaries continued stay in the ICF at least every 6 months to decide whether it is needed.
( b ) The UR plan requirement for continued stay review may be met by— ( 1 ) Reviews that are performed in accordance with the requirements of §§ 456.432 through 456.437; or
( 2 ) Reviews that meet on-site inspection requirements under subpart I if— ( i ) The composition of the independent professional review team under subpart I meets the requirements of § 456.406; and
( ii ) Reviews are conducted as frequently as required under §§ 456.433 and 456.434.
* 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. CORRECTED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30890 Summary Calendar

ROLANDO ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AL MARTIN; DRUE BERGENA; PAM NIESSING; TERRY FIELDER; L.C.S. CORRECTION SERVICES, INC.; GARY COPES; MARSHALL GREER, DR.; JOHN TATE, Sergeant; BERT CAMPBELL; AL MOORE,

Defendants-Appellees.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-1445

--------------------------------------------------------

January 8, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Rolando Alexander , INS detainee #A21156111, appeals the district court’s summary

judgment for the defendants. His request for appointed appellate counsel is DENIED. S ee Cupit v.

Jones , 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).

Alexander contends that the district court discounted Alexander’s sworn declaration giving

his version of events and, thus, the court improperly made credibility determinations. Alexander

conte nds t hat the amount of force used by the defendants against him in order to remove thepaperclips was done maliciously and amounted to deliberate indiffe rence. He al so contends that

Warden Bergena’s assistance in the medical procedure amounted to deliberate indifference.

From o ur independent review, we conclude that Alexander failed to meet his summaryjudgment burden in proving that the defendants’ use of force in removing the paperclip from the selfinflict ed mouth wound wa s do ne maliciously to cause him harm, and he failed to demonstrate a

genuine disputed material fact on the issue. S ee Hudson v. McMillian

, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); Little

v. Liquid Air Corp.

, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The evidence indicates that the

defendants’ acts were not repugnant to the conscience of mankind. S ee Jackson v. Culbertson

, 984

F.2d 699, 700 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, the summary-judgment evidence reveals that Bergena’s

conduct in cutting the paperclip metal, instead of the medical practitioner cutting the metal, would

amount to no more than negligent medical care. “The evidence does not present a material fact for

deliberate indifference” by Bergena or by the nurse. S tewart v. Murphy

, 174 F.3d 530, 534-35 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 906 (1999).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
# C_2005205EN.01002002.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 June 2005

in Case T-7/04 Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker - Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 205/35)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-7/04: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas, established in Vietri sul Mare (Italy), represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (agent: M. Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Limiñana y Botella, SL, established in Monforte del Cid (Spain), action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/ 2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/2002-2) and alters it so that the appeal brought before OHIM by the applicant is well founded and consequently the opposition must be rejected; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/2002-2) and alters it so that the appeal brought before OHIM by the applicant is well founded and consequently the opposition must be rejected;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.

1

---
§ 425.810 Effective date of decision. ( a ) If the initial determination denying an ACO's application to participate in the Shared Savings Program is upheld, the application will remain denied based on the effective date of the original notice of denial.
( b ) If the initial determination to terminate an agreement with an ACO is upheld, the decision to terminate the agreement is effective as of the date indicated in the initial notice of termination.
( c ) If the initial determination to terminate an ACO is reversed, the ACO is reinstated into the Shared Savings Program, retroactively back to the original date of termination.
§ 405.1060 Applicability of national coverage determinations (NCDs). ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) An NCD is a determination by the Secretary of whether a particular item or service is covered nationally under Medicare.
( 2 ) An NCD does not include a determination of what code, if any, is assigned to a particular item or service covered under Medicare or a determination of the amount of payment made for a particular item or service.
( 3 ) NCDs are made under section 1862(a)(1) of the Act as well as under other applicable provisions of the Act.
( 4 ) An NCD is binding on fiscal intermediaries, carriers, QIOs, QICs, ALJs and attorney adjudicators, and the Council.
( b ) *Review by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator.* ( 1 ) An ALJ or attorney adjudicator may not disregard, set aside, or otherwise review an NCD.
( 2 ) An ALJ or attorney adjudicator may review the facts of a particular case to determine whether an NCD applies to a specific claim for benefits and, if so, whether the NCD was applied correctly to the claim.
( c ) *Review by the Council.* ( 1 ) The Council may not disregard, set aside, or otherwise review an NCD for purposes of a section 1869 claim appeal, except that the DAB may review NCDs as provided under part 426 of this title.
( 2 ) The Council may review the facts of a particular case to determine whether an NCD applies to a specific claim for benefits and, if so, whether the NCD was applied correctly to the claim.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 37704, June 30, 2005; 82 FR 5121, Jan. 17, 2017]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3196

To increase the penalty for trafficking in powdered cocaine to the same

level as the penalty for trafficking in crack cocaine, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 1996

Mr. SHAYS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To increase the penalty for trafficking in powdered cocaine

to the same level as the penalty for trafficking in crack

cocaine, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

4 ACT.

5 Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act

6 (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘5 kilo8 grams’’ and inserting ‘‘50 grams’’; and
2

•HR 3196 IH

1 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ‘‘500

2 grams’’ and inserting ‘‘5 grams’’.

3 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

4 Pursuant to section 994(p) of title 28, United States

5 Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall pro6 mulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to carry

7 out this Act.

Æ
**NAME ST_ABBREV** **FIPS PLACE_FIPS**  **POP_2000 POP2007**  **% Change STATUS** 

Pinehurst ID 16079 63100 1661 1590 -4.3% SmeltervilleID 16079 75070 651 650 -0.2% Kellogg ID 16079 42580 2395 2408 0.5% Wardner ID 16079 85240 215 215 0.0% Osburn ID 16079 59590 1545 1485 -3.9% Wallace ID 16079 84790 960 918 -4.4%County Seat Plummer ID 16009 63910 990 1042 5.3% Saint MariesID 16009 71470 2652 2587 -2.5%County Seat
§ 436.531 Determination of blindness. In determining blindness— ( a ) A physician skilled in the diseases of the eye or an optometrist, whichever the individual selects, must examine him, unless both of the applicant's eyes are missing;
( b ) The examiner must submit a report of examination to the Medicaid agency; and
( c ) A physician skilled in the diseases of the eye (for example, an ophthalmologist or an eye, ear, nose, and throat specialist) must review the report and determine on behalf of the agency— ( 1 ) Whether the individual meets the definition of blindness; and
( 2 ) Whether and when reexaminations are necessary for periodic redeterminations of eligibility, as required under § 435.916 of this subchapter. Blindness is considered to continue until the reviewing physician determines that the beneficiary's vision no longer meets the definition.
[43 FR 45218, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 17939, Mar. 23, 1979]
# C_2006121EN.01000102.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2006 — Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren

(Case C-12/06)

(2006/C 121/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iris Bucher

Applicant:

Defendant: Landrat des Kreises Düren

Defendant:

Question(s) referred

| 1. | Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full course of study in another Member State on the ground that the course does not constitute the continuation of attendance at a German education or training establishment for a period of at least one year? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full course of study in another Member State on the ground that the course does not constitute the continuation of attendance at a German education or training establishment for a period of at least one year?

| 2. | Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals, who as a cross-border commuter is pursuing her course of study in a neighbouring Member State, on the grounds that she is residing at a border location in Germany only for education or training purposes and that that place of abode is not her permanent residence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals, who as a cross-border commuter is pursuing her course of study in a neighbouring Member State, on the grounds that she is residing at a border location in Germany only for education or training purposes and that that place of abode is not her permanent residence?

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Flooding in Libya

# 									Flooding in Libya							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

September 11, 2023

The United States expresses its sympathies and condolences to those affected by the devastating flooding in Libya. The United States is coordinating with UN partners and Libyan authorities on how we can assist the ongoing relief efforts.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsClimate and EnvironmentHumanitarian AidLibyaNatural DisastersOffice of the SpokespersonRefugee and Humanitarian AssistanceUnited Nations

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 23.01

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86098, 333-89666, 333-113557 and 333-119266) and Form S-8(Nos. 333-137397, 333-120316, 333-119271, 333-118090, 333-104685, 333-69116, 333-52512, 333-95673, 333-92173, 333-58183, 333-77321,333-66151, 333-02889, 333-00779, 033-43591 and 333-14241) of Adaptec, Inc. of our report dated June 4, 2007, relatingto the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP      

San Jose, California
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU US Holdings Company

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, T. L. Baker, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive of TXU US Holdings Company (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 22nd day of June, 2005.



/s/ T.L. BakerName:

T. L. BakerTitle:

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU US Holdings Company and will be retained by TXU US Holdings Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.