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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1611

AYABA MANA MESSAN; KODJOVI OROU; SIBI DIDI

LAWSON,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-081-822; A96-081-823; A96-081-824)

Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 9, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,

James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig Y. Lee, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ayaba Mana Messan, a native and citizen of Togo,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its prior order,

which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of her

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and

the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 491 (4th Cir.

2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Messan, No. A96-081-822

(B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2006). 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Beatrice GARNO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of National Property Investors 6 (the "Partnership"),for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
§ 440.90 Clinic services. *Clinic services* means preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, or palliative services that are furnished by a facility that is not part of a hospital but is organized and operated to provide medical care to outpatients. The term includes the following services furnished to outpatients: ( a ) Services furnished at the clinic by or under the direction of a physician or dentist.
( b ) Services furnished outside the clinic, by clinic personnel under the direction of a physician, to an eligible individual who does not reside in a permanent dwelling or does not have a fixed home or mailing address.
[56 FR 8851, Mar. 1, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 61486, Nov. 30, 1995]
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.318 Special rules for coverage that begins or ends during an inpatient hospital stay. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to inpatient services in a “subsection (d) hospital” as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Act, a psychiatric hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(i) of the act, a rehabilitation hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, a distinct part rehabilitation unit described in the matter following clause (v) of section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Act, or a long-term care hospital (described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)).
( b ) *Coverage that begins during an inpatient stay.* If coverage under an MA plan offered by an MA organization begins while the beneficiary is an inpatient in one of the facilities described in paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Payment for inpatient services until the date of the beneficiary's discharge is made by the previous MA organization or original Medicare, as appropriate;
( 2 ) The MA organization offering the newly-elected MA plan is not responsible for the inpatient services until the date after the beneficiary's discharge; and
( 3 ) The MA organization offering the newly-elected MA plan is paid the full amount otherwise payable under this subpart.
( c ) *Coverage that ends during an inpatient stay.* If coverage under an MA plan offered by an MA organization ends while the beneficiary is an inpatient in one of the facilities described in paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) The MA organization is responsible for the inpatient services until the date of the beneficiary's discharge;
( 2 ) Payment for those services during the remainder of the stay is not made by original Medicare or by any succeeding MA organization offering a newly-elected MA plan; and
( 3 ) The MA organization that no longer provides coverage receives no payment for the beneficiary for the period after coverage ends.
p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

111) IV-C-25 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 111 of 142 
P.2 

_*_ r, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

H -c- 25 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

T T ,._,,.,... . . | | | AND STANDARDS 

Honorable Barbara Mikulski 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510-2003 

Dear Senator Mikulski: 

Thank you for your letter of July 13,1999, in support of our efforts to simplify and 

streamline the new source review (NSR) program. You indicated that some of your constituents 

believe that "...the uncertainty of the NSR program stifles innovation and threatens the global 

competitiveness of our manufacturing sector for little environmental benefit." Further, you 

indicated that these constituents believe that "EPA is focusing too much on the details of specific 

operations at individual companies, rather than focusing on the installation of new technology to 

meet Clean Air goals." 

We have made a special effort over the past year to seek further input from all 

stakeholders on new approaches that will help achieve our goals of providing more flexibility for 

industry and streamlining the permitting process, while preserving uie environmental protection 

called for by the Clean Air Act. Our next series of meetings with stakeholders are being 

scheduled for this August and September. We are hopeful that we can come to a widely accepted 

set of program reforms that allows sources to manage emissions reductions with their plans for 

growth and changes needed to meet new market demands. We expect to have resolution on most 

issues by late this fall. We are also investigating sector-based approaches for industrial groups, 

such as utilities, that have similar manufacturing and emissions characteristics. This effort will 

require a considerable investment of time and energy on the part of stakeholders, as well as EPA 

staff, but will yield important dividends if the legal and policy issues can be resolved. 

Again, thank you for your concern and comments. If I can be of further service, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. 

OrlWaS S^ned By 

Robert O. Brenner 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

OAR:OAQPS:ITPID:IIG:DCrumper:ybthorpe:NCMU:MD-12:919-541-0871 

CONTROL NO. AL-9901651 Due Date: 8/3/99 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 

•P
41377.

#### SPAULDING v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. His motion for new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only, was overruled and he excepts. There was evidence that the defendant had operated the automobile within approximately fifteen minutes of the time he was arrested and had had nothing to drink during such interval; that at the time of his arrest, he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, his balance was impaired, he wobbled as he walked about and he was weaving when he was standing talking to the arresting officer, and in the opinion of the arresting officer it was less safe for defendant to operate an automobile in such condition than it would have been if he had not been so affected by alcohol. *Held:*

While the defendant denied being drunk, the above evidence *856was sufficient to authorize the conviction and such case is distinguishable on its facts from cases exemplified by *Painter v. State,*101 Ga. App. 21 (112 SE2d 704), and *Gunder v. State,*95 Ga. App. 176 (97 SE2d 381), where the defendant was not observed operating the automobile and there was no showing as to the lapse of time between such operation and the observed intoxication. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. See also *Brown v. State,*98 Ga. App. 350 (105 SE2d 785).

Submitted June 8, 1965

Decided June 15, 1965.

*Joseph 0. Saseen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Tom Edenfield,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that the October 8, 2009 regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board) has been rescheduled. The regular meeting of the Board will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009 starting at 9 a.m. An agenda for this meeting will be published at a later date.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

Dated: September 11, 2009.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. E9-22276 Filed 9-11-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Monaco’s National Day

# 									Monaco’s National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 19, 2022

On behalf of the United States of America, I offer my congratulations to the people of Monaco as you celebrate your National Day.

The Monégasque and American people have enjoyed a productive friendship since 1866. Our governments have worked together to promote human rights, freedom, and a comprehensive response to the climate crisis.  H.S.H. Prince Albert II has been a prominent voice on environmental issues and has shown an unwavering commitment to protect our oceans from the threats of pollution and overfishing.  The United States looks forward to continuing our partnership and collaboration with Monaco in these and other vital areas.

Please accept my best wishes as you celebrate a most joyous National Day.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsMonacoOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 45; 251 U. S., 198.]

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

A railroad company which contracted to carry the mail for a compensation fixed, pursuant to the act of May 27, 1908, c. 206, 35 Stat., 412, by test weighings made after withdrawing empty mail bags, has no ground to complain that they were withdrawn to diminish the compensation.

Empty mail bags withdrawn from the mails, and which, with other articles of furniture and equipment, are, under the act of May 27, 1908, *supra,*required to be transmitted by freight or *507express, are property of the United States, within the free transportation provisions of the railroad land-grant acts of February 8, 1853, e. 59, sec. 4, 10 Stat., 155, and July 28, 1866, c. 300, sec. 1, 14 Stat., 338.

The provision of the land-grant act of 1853, *supra,*sec. 13, requiring transportation of the mail over claimant’s land-aided road at such price as Congress may by law direct, and that of the act of July 12, 1876, c. 179, sec. 13, 19 Stat., 82, fixing the compensation in such cases at SO per cent of that generally allowed, do not embrace, as part of the mail, empty mail bags which by the act of May 27, 1908, are classified with other property of the United States for transportation by freight or express.

The act of June 30, 1882, c. 254, 22 Stat., 120, directing payment on a 50 per cent basis for Army transportation by land-grant, railroads, is inapplicable to the present case.

Mr. Justice Dat

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 5, 1920.
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Guinea (19-913) – Aviation Transport Services Agreement

# 									Guinea (19-913) – Aviation Transport Services Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

Transportation, Aviation Transport Services

Agreement signed at Washington September 13, 2019; entered into force September 13, 2019.
Download Agreement						 [2 MB]

Tags

Air Transport AgreementsGuineaTransportationTreaties

Back to Top
Request for Information FAA-2015-0323 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Mr. Dailey and Mr. McPeek,

This email is to inform you that the FAA requires more information for the analysis of AGERpoint Inc. 

amendment (Docket No. FAA­2015­0323), in order to access the USA Tempest XL, AeroScout Scout B1­100, and 

Guided Systems Technologies, Inc SICX­75. 

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition to operate 

the USA Tempest XL, AeroScout Scout B1­100, for S­1 approval and Guided Systems Technologies, Inc SICX­75 to 

operate above 55 lbs. 

z A detailed description of the USA Tempest XL, AeroScout Scout B1­100, and Guided Systems

Technologies, Inc SICX­75 UAS with a focus on design, configuration, features, and flight characteristics to 

include, but not limited to: 

{ Detailed 3 view drawings with scale of the aircraft and any launch and recovery equipment if 

applicable 

{ Operational limitations, restrictions, and warnings

{ Operational history with supporting statistics; particularly where AGERpoint Inc. was the principal

operator

{ Results of analysis and flight testing of UAS, especially results that form the basis of the UAS 

operational envelope

{ Lessons learned from operational failure(s) and resultant repairs, alterations, design fixes, 

operational envelope changes, changes to operational/maintenance procedures and so on

{ Details of any injuries or property damage resulting from flight/ground operations

{ Safety analysis of any failure modes such as lost link, fly­away, loss of control, etc.

z Copies of manuals, photographs, videos/telemetry may be provided as support

z Any other information to support an analysis of operational safety with the USA Tempest XL, AeroScout

Scout B1­100, and Guided Systems Technologies, Inc SICX­75.

Please submit the additional information (non­proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information is submitted, please save your tracking number and then submit your tracking number along with 

the information submitted to the docket, and any proprietary information electronically via e­mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 11/18/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying 

you further.

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:45 AM 

To: adailey@agerpoint.com; tmcpeek@agerpoint.com 

Request for Information FAA-2015-0323 Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note... 11/2/2016
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Malaysia National Day

# 									Malaysia National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 30, 2023

On behalf of the Government of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Malaysia on the occasion of your National Day on August 31.

The United States appreciates the past 66 years of Malaysia’s friendship and cooperation. Together, our shared values and deep economic, security, and people-to-people ties have strengthened our bilateral relationship and set the foundation for a prosperous and stable future. We sincerely look forward to many more years of partnership and collaboration as we work together towards a peaceful and resilient Indo-Pacific region.

The United States sends our heartfelt congratulations to the people of Malaysia on your National Day.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsMalaysiaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 426.325 What may be challenged. ( a ) Only LCDs or NCDs (including deemed NCDs) that are currently effective may be challenged.
( b ) Some items are not reviewable under this part, including the following: ( 1 ) Pre-decisional materials, including— ( i ) Draft LCDs;
( ii ) Template LCDs or suggested LCDs; and
( iii ) Draft NCDs, including national coverage decision memoranda.
( 2 ) Retired LCDs or withdrawn NCDs.
( 3 ) LCD or NCD provisions that are no longer in effect due to revisions or reconsiderations.
( 4 ) Interpretive policies that are not an LCD or NCD.
( 5 ) Contractor decisions that are not based on section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
( 6 ) Contractor claims processing edits.
( 7 ) Payment amounts or methodologies.
( 8 ) Procedure coding issues, including determinations, methodologies, definitions, or provisions.
( 9 ) Contractor bulletin articles, educational materials, or Web site frequently asked questions.
( 10 ) Any M + C organization or managed care plan policy, rule, or procedure.
( 11 ) An individual claim determination.
( 12 ) Any other policy that is not an LCD or an NCD as set forth in § 400.202 of this chapter.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 2 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS LOTTIE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-9004

Appeal from U.S. Tax Court

(T. C. No. 17867-97)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner-Appellant Douglas Lottie seeks review of a decision by the United

States Tax Court dismissing as untimely his petition for redetermination of

deficiency. We affirm.

On December 18, 1996, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

(Commissioner) mailed a notice of deficiency for his 1994 and 1995 tax years to

petitioner at his last known address. On August 19, 1997, petitioner mailed a

petition to the Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiencies asserted

against him for 1994 and 1995. The petition was file-stamped on August 25, 1997. 

A tax court petition must be filed within ninety days of the mailing of the

notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). A petition which is mailed to the

Tax Court is deemed filed on the postmark date. See 26 U.S.C. § 7502. 

Petitioner mailed his petition to the Tax Court 244 days after the notice of

deficiency was mailed to him. He fails to show that he falls within any exception to

the time limits detailed in 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213 and 7502. The Tax Court correctly

dismissed his petition as untimely. 

The judgment of the United States Tax Court is hereby AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge