alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00582-CV

ADRIAN LEE 

v.

TDCJ-CID, ET AL.

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-17-1260-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the 

appellant, although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 12, 2018
§ 435.124 Individuals eligible as specified low-income Medicare beneficiaries. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements sections 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) and 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency must provide medical assistance to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements in § 435.123(b), except that income exceeds 100 percent, but is less than 120 percent of the poverty level.
( c ) *Scope.* Medical assistance included in paragraph (b) of this section includes the following: ( 1 ) For individuals entitled to Medicare Part A as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, coverage for the Part B premium.
( 2 ) For individuals enrolled under Medicare Part B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, only coverage of the Part B premium related to enrollment in Medicare Part B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.
[87 FR 66511, Nov. 3, 2022]
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, De cker and Senior Judge Coleman

ETON A. THOMAS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0041-14-4 PER CURIAM MAY 20, 2014 LSG SKY CHEFS DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Eton A. Thomas, pro se , on brief). (Gregory V. Chestnut, on brief), for appellee.

Eton A. Thomas (claimant) appeals th e decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) dismissing claima nt’s request for re view of the deputy commissioner’s opinion because it lacked jurisdicti on since he failed to timely file his request for review. On appeal, claimant argues that (1 ) the attorney for LSG Sky Chefs (employer) misrepresented to the deputy commissioner that claimant was born in Guatemala, but he was born in British Guiana; (2) employer’s attorney’s arguments to the deputy commissioner were based upon claimant’s lifestyle in Guatemala, but he never lived in Guatemala; (3) employer’s attorney manipulated the te stimony before the deputy co mmissioner by falsely claiming claimant’s life in Guatemala caused a pre-exis ting eye condition; (4) the deputy commissioner erred in finding that claimant’s pterygium was caused by exposure to sunlight in Guatemala and not from working in the sun on the roofs of employer’s buildings; (5) the commission erred in denying claimant a full and fair hearing; (6) th e commission erred in no t considering all the

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - circumstances and the direct causal relationship to establish the true origin of claimant’s pterygium; (7) the commission e rred in failing to issue subpoena s for the inspection logs of claimant’s job site; (8) the deputy commissioner erred in relying upon Unite d Airlines v. Walter, 24 Va. App. 394, 482 S.E.2d 849 (1997); and (9) the commission erred in determining claimant failed to timely file a request for review and in dismissing his case.

We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and find th at this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Thomas v. LSG Sky Chefs, VWC File No. VA00000477872 (Dec. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
41101.

#### BANKS v. HOLT.

Jordan, Judge.

S. M. Banks filed an application with the processioners of the 1274th District, G. M., of Gilmer County to have marked anew the east boundary line of his property, it being asserted in the application that the original land lot lines of lots 259 and 260 constituted the line to be surveyed and marked. After notice to the adjoining landowner, Mrs. Marie Derden Holt, the processioners surveyed the line and filed a return establishing as the dividing line between the property of the parties, the original land lot lines as sought by the applicant. To this return Mrs. Holt filed a protest in which she alleged that a certain described line, now marked by a fence, which had been located and recognized by the adjoining landowners for a period of more than 50 years, was the true boundary line, and not the line established by the processioners.

The issue thus raised was tried in the Superior Court of Gilmer County and a verdict was rendered in favor of Mrs. Holt. Mr. Banks’ amended motion for a new trial was denied and the exception is to that judgment. *Held:*

The trial court did not err as contended in special ground 2 in failing to charge the jury without request the law relating *474to the establishment of a dividing line by acquiescence with respect to the line claimed by the applicant, Mr. Banks, as the true dividing line between his property and that of Mrs. Holt.

Decided February 12, 1965

Rehearing denied March 23 and April 1, 1965.

*Herman J. Spence,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henderson & Pope, A. J. Henderson, Marion T. Pope, Jr.,*contra.

“To establish a line by acquiescence, it must appear that the owners of the property to be affected by the establishment of the line either acted in such a manner for a space of seven years, or made such declarations during the continuance of that period, as to show that the line claimed was the true line between the estates.” *Catoosa Springs Co. v. Webb,*123 Ga. 33, 34 (50 SE 942). “There must be acquiescence by the acts or declarations of *both*the ‘adjoining landowners.’ ” *Bradley v. Shelton,*189 Ga. 696, 697 (4a) (7 SE2d 261). “Mere passive acquiescence” is not sufficient to establish a dividing line. *Cassels v. Mays,*147 Ga. 224 (93 SE 199); *O’Neal V. Ward,*148 Ga. 62 (1) (95 SE 709); *Scales v. Wood,*100 Ga. App. 836 (3) (112 SE2d 670).

While there was some evidence of the cutting of timber by the applicant on the land in dispute, this was not sufficient to show that both of the adjoining landowners, or their predecessors in title, either by their acts or declarations had agreed upon the line claimed by Mr. Banks as the true dividing line, *Southern Timber Co. v. Bland,*32 Ga. App. 658 (124 SE 359); and there was no other evidence in this case which was sufficient to authorize the submission of this issue in charge to the jury.

The general grounds and the remaining special ground have been abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Officials and Military Units in Response to Escalating Violence in Burma

# 									Designating Officials and Military Units in Response to Escalating Violence in Burma							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 22, 2021

Since the military coup last month, the people of Burma have voiced their aspirations for a return to democratic governance, peace, and rule of law.  The United States, together with our allies and partners, has stood with them.  In response, the military regime continues its violent crackdown, which has killed at least 194 people to-date, including peaceful protesters.  The junta continues its attempts to overturn the results of a democratic election by brutally repressing peaceful protesters and killing individuals who are simply demanding a say in their country’s future.

In response, today the United States is designating Burma’s Chief of Police, Than Hlaing, and Bureau of Special Operations commander, Lieutenant General Aung Soe, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14014.  We are further designating two army units, the 33rd and 77th Light Infantry Divisions (LIDs), pursuant to E.O. 14014, for being responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, actions or policies that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by people in Burma.  Members of the 33rd LID were among the security forces that fired live rounds into a crowd in Mandalay, and both the 33rd LID and 77th LID are part of the Burmese security forces’ planned, systemic strategies to ramp up the use of lethal force.  These designations show that this violence will not go unanswered.

Our EU partners across the Atlantic have also announced new measures today to impose costs on the Burmese military regime, creating a new EU sanctions program and further designating 11 Burmese individuals associated with the coup and related violence, many of whom the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have sanctioned.  These actions demonstrate the international community’s condemnation of the regime and commitment to the people of Burma.

Today’s actions send a strong signal that we will follow through on our pledges to continue to take action against coup leaders and those who perpetrate violence.  The United States continues to call on the military regime to release all those unjustly detained; stop its attacks on civil society members, journalists, and labor unionists; halt the brutal killings by its security forces; and return power to the democratically elected government.

For more information about today’s actions, see the Treasury Department’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBurmaDemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
HomeAngola

# Angola

92 items

        -    Media Note  		Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to Angola, Zambia, DRC, and Belgium	  October 16, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing on U.S.-EU Partnership to Accelerate Development of the Lobito Corridor	  September 13, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Embassy Luanda Launches the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project to Increase Financial Inclusion	  August 7, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Senior Coordinator for Atlantic Cooperation Lapenn’s Travel to Namibia, South Africa, and Angola	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 11, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Angola 	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 15, 2023	  Matthew MillerJune 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Angola	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Democratic Republic of the Congo President Tshisekedi	  May 24, 2023 

previous page12345…10next page

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 405 appear at 76 FR 5961, Feb. 2, 2011.

§ 405.375 Time limits for, and notification of, administrative determination after receipt of rebuttal statement. ( a ) *Submission and disposition of evidence.* If the provider or supplier submits a statement, under § 405.374, as to why a suspension of payment, offset, or recoupment should not be put into effect, or, under § 405.372(b)(2), why a suspension should be terminated, CMS, the intermediary, or carrier must within 15 days, from the date the statement is received, consider the statement (including any pertinent evidence submitted), together with any other material bearing upon the case, and determine whether the facts justify the suspension, offset, or recoupment or, if already initiated, justify the termination of the suspension, offset, or recoupment. Suspension, offset, or recoupment is not delayed beyond the date stated in the notice in order to review the statement.
( b ) *Notification of determination.* The Medicare contractor must send written notice of the determination made under paragraph (a) of this section to the provider or supplier. The notice must— ( 1 ) In the case of offset or recoupment, contain rationale for the determination; and
( 2 ) In the case of suspension of payment, contain specific findings on the conditions upon which the suspension is initiated, continued, or removed and an explanatory statement of the determination.
( c ) *Determination is not appealable.* A determination made under paragraph (a) of this section is not an initial determination and is not appealable.
[61 FR 63747, Dec. 2, 1996]
#### George M. BIGGERS, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 45916.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1975.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CAPITAL
RESERVE CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,495
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 195,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,374,894
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,382,550)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   195,336
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (172,917)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (172,917)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 435.906 Opportunity to apply.

The agency must afford an individual wishing to do so the opportunity to apply for Medicaid without delay.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in (i) the  Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No.  33-68862)  pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan,
(ii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 2-86405) pertaining to the 1983
Key Employees'  Stock Option Plan and (iii) the  Registration  Statement on Form
S-8 (No.  2-96014)  pertaining to the Employee  Stock  Purchase Plan  previously
filed by Merrimac  Industries,  Inc. of our report,  dated  February  17,  1996,
appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year  ended
December  30,  1995  (the  "Form  10-KSB"),  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of  Merrimac  Industries,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  as of
December  30,  1995  and  December  31,  1994  and for  the  years  then  ended,
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.




                                                         /s/ J.H. COHN & COMPANY
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             J.H. Cohn & Company



Roseland, New Jersey
March 20, 1996



Exhibit 23(A)
# C_2006143EN.01002602.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/26

---

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-179/06)

(2006/C 143/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Applicant

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, as the municipality of Altamura and the region of Apulia approved, with effect from December 2000, an alteration to a development plan comprising a series of industrial construction operations liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia Alta without having first carried out an impact assessment procedure at least in respect of the impact on the SPA, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, as the municipality of Altamura and the region of Apulia approved, with effect from December 2000, an alteration to a development plan comprising a series of industrial construction operations liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia Alta without having first carried out an impact assessment procedure at least in respect of the impact on the SPA, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC; (1)

Murgia Alta

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The alteration to the development plan concerning the construction operations falling within SPA and SCIp IT 912007 Murgia Alta was not the subject of an appropriate assessment of the impact on the area, as provided for in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

Murgia Alta

The resolution of the municipality of Altamura and the Regional Executive, which approved the said alteration to the development plan, is in contravention of the abovementioned Community provisions, in that, although the said alteration was liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia Alta, an impact assessment procedure was not carried out.

Murgia Alta

The reason stated for the absence of an assessment clearly does not comply with Community law. The reason given is that the size of the construction operations fell below the thresholds set by the domestic law implementing Directives 85/337/EEC, as amended, (2) and 92/43/EEC. However, under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC ‘any plan or project’ likely to have a significant impact on the site must be subject to an impact assessment, and this obligation is not limited to a list of projects the size of which exceeds the threshold set.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 206, p. 7.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47242-47243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22088]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-72-000]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

September 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (PG&E) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, and an 
accompanying Declaration, requesting that the Commission declare that 
PG&E can recover in electric transmission rates its costs to develop a 
Regional Synchrophasor Project in conjunction with the Western 
Electricity Coordinating Council to develop wide area monitoring, 
advance warning systems, adaptive protection and controls in alignment 
with neighboring systems and the California Independent System Operator 
Corporation, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Rules of Practice and 
Procedure of the Commission, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the

[[Page 47243]]

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. 
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the 
comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the 
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db9d9e899894b5b7b2b5be88aeababb4a9af9bbdbea9b8f5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="561013041519383a3f383305232626392422163033243578313920">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22088 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 11

                     GUARANTY BANCSHARES HOLDING CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

                                                                                
                                         1995          1994          1993  

Number of shares - beginning of year    380,877       380,877       380,877

Issued during year                          -0-           -0-           -0-
Number of shares - end of year          380,877       380,877       380,877

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding                           373,728       374,375       374,375

   NOTE:  Weighted average calculated based upon actual number of days          
     outstanding for each share, exclusive of 7,852 shares held in              
treasury.