alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAmbassador William H. Moser

# 									Ambassador William H. Moser							

## **Ambassador William H. Moser**

#### **Director**

Ambassador William H. Moser was appointed Director of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operation (OBO) on October 25, 2021.  In this capacity, Ambassador Moser directs the American diplomatic real estate portfolio and $2 billion annually appropriated capital security construction program globally. OBO manages a diplomatic portfolio in 291 locations worldwide and is currently executing over $20 billion of ongoing construction.  Mr. Moser has previously served OBO as Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director.

Mr. Moser was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan from 2019 – 2021 and the Republic of Moldova from 2011 to 2015.

Ambassador Moser has had a distinguished career as a member of the U.S. Foreign Service.  Since joining the diplomatic corps in 1984, his Washington assignments have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management, the Director of Global Support Services and Innovation, the Deputy Executive Director for European and Eurasian Affairs, Post Management Officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, and Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Bureau of Political Military Affairs.

Ambassador Moser’s overseas assignments have included tours as the Management Counselor at U.S. Embassy Kiev, Energy Attaché/Economic Officer and Management Officer at U.S. Embassy Almaty, Administrative Officer at U.S. Embassy Paramaribo, Financial Management Officer at U.S. Embassy Cairo and Consular Officer/Staff Assistant at U.S. Embassy Bonn.   Ambassador Moser began his diplomatic career as a General Services Officer at U.S. Embassy Bamako, Mali.  He is fluent in Russian, German, and French.

A dedicated public servant, Ambassador Moser has won numerous commendations throughout his career for his contributions to international affairs, management, and public policy.  In July 2011, Ambassador Moser was awarded the Secretary of Defense’s Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service.  In 2003, he won the Leamon R. Hunt Award for Administrative Excellence.

Born and raised in North Carolina, Ambassador Moser received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  He is married and has three children.

Back to Top
SCPW-13-0000130

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s

“Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Post Conviction

Petition Rule 40 [HRAP 23]”, filed on March 4, 2013, which we

review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the document

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it appears

that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. 

Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the State of Hawai#i owes

him a duty to release him from custody and provide him gate money

and clothes pending the disposition of his HRPP Rule 40

proceeding and petitioner has alternative means to seek relief. 

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000130

20-MAR-2013

02:39 PM
2

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress

adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action);

Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361

(1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to

perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the

individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is

ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,

and no other remedy is available). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a

writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 20, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.220 Exclusion of payment for basic benefits furnished under a private contract. ( a ) Unless otherwise authorized in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, an MA organization may not pay, directly or indirectly, on any basis, for basic benefits furnished to a Medicare enrollee by a physician (as defined in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of section 1861(r) of the Act) or other practitioner (as defined in section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act) who has filed with the Medicare contractor an affidavit promising to furnish Medicare-covered services to Medicare beneficiaries only through private contracts under section 1802(b) of the Act with the beneficiaries.
( b ) An MA organization must pay for emergency or urgently needed services furnished by a physician or practitioner described in paragraph (a) of this section who has not signed a private contract with the beneficiary.
( c ) An MA organization may make payment to a physician or practitioner described in paragraph (a) of this section for services that are not basic benefits but are provided to a beneficiary as a supplemental benefit consistent with § 422.102.
[86 FR 6098, Jan. 19, 2021]
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 Quarterly Report of Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gifford A.
Dieterle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.






/s/
Gifford A. Dieterle


Gifford
A. Dieterle


Chief
Executive Officer, President and Treasurer


March 12,
2009
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-69554, 333-53296, 333-53296-01, 333-53296-02 and 333-53296-03 on Form S-3 of
TXU US Holdings Company of our report dated February 14, 2003 (March 19, 2003 as
to Note 18) (which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 as described in Note 2 of
the Notes to Financial Statements), appearing in TXU US Holdings Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2003
HomeDSS Press Releases...Fresno Man Pleads Guilty to Passport Fraud by Assuming the Identity of a Deceased Child

# 									Fresno Man Pleads Guilty to Passport Fraud by Assuming the Identity of a Deceased Child							

Department of Justice Release

January 16, 2024

For Immediate Release – January 16, 2024

Click here to read more about this

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyCaliforniaDSS ReleasesFraudNew YorkPassportsUnited States

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1373

___________ Richard E. Kulkey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Mark VII Distributors, Inc., a * [UNPUBLISHED] Minnesota corporation, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 16, 2000 Filed: January 30, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. RichardE. Kulkey brought this action against his former employer, Mark VII Distributors, Inc., alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Kulkey, who was employed for approximately eight years as the custodian at Mark VII’s St. Pauldistribution warehouse, received a series of negative performance evaluations, culminating in his being placed on probation and having his hours temporarily reduced from forty to twenty per week on November 17, 1997. Kulkey had earlier suffered a1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

2 The Honorable John M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- work-relatedshoulder injury, which he later aggravated off the job, resulting in his filinga worker’s compensation claim on October 9, 1997. After being placed on probation, Kulkey quit his job at Mark VII. A younger worker has since performed at least some of Kulkey’s old job duties. Characterizing his probation and his subsequent resignation, which he contends was a constructive discharge, as adverse employment actions, Kulkey’s complaint alleged that he had suffered retaliatory action for filing his worker’s compensation claim and that Mark VII had discriminated against him because of his age and his actual or perceived disability. The district court 1 granted summary judgment in favor of Mark VII. Kulkey appeals both from that judgment and from the district court’s prior order affirming the magistrate judge’s 2 denial of Kulkey’s discovery request and his imposition of sanctions in the amount of $350.00.
The district court held that Kulkey had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his age, any disability that he may have, or his filing a worker’s compensation claim and the adverse employment action, that he had failed to demonstrate that Mark VII’s proffered reason for the action (his poor work performance) was pretextual, and that he had failed to show that the magistrate judge’s decision to impose sanctions and to deny the discovery request was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the district court’s opinion and order, we affirm pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.
Affirmed.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Stanley SIMPSON, Laurana Simpson, his wife, and United Services Automobile Association, Appellants, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellees.

No. 80-1553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1981.

Virgin, Whittle & Garbis and Gary E. Garbis, Miami, for appellants.

Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Pyszka & Kessler, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Cardounel v. Shell Oil Company,*397 So.2d 328 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); *De La Torre v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc.,*374 So.2d 1046 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); *Perry v. Cities Service Oil Company,*239 So.2d 869 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); *Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company,*124 So.2d 517 (Fla.2d DCA 1960).
#### § 418.72 Condition of participation: Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology.

Physical therapy services, occupational therapy services, and speech-language pathology services must be available, and when provided, offered in a manner consistent with accepted standards of practice.
§ 442.110 Certification period for ICF/IID with standard-level deficiencies. Facilities with standard-level deficiencies may be certified under § 442.101 with a condition that the certification will continue if either of the following applies: ( a ) The survey agency finds that all deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected.
( b ) The survey agency finds that the facility has made substantial progress in correcting the deficiencies and has a new plan of correction that is acceptable.
[79 FR 27153, May 12, 2014]
First Amendment to Employee Agreement between Registrant and S. Linn Williams



 Exhibit 10.35 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Between 
 Mirant Corporation 
 and 
 S. Linn Williams 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“the Amendment”)
is made as of August 11, 2006, between Mirant Corporation (the “Company”), Mirant Services, LLC (“Services”) and S. Linn Williams (“Executive”). Capitalized terms used herein and not defined
shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement executed by the parties on November 3, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Section 18 of the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows: 
 The portion of Section 5(a) of the Employment Agreement that states: 
 Severance. 
 (a)
Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by reason of the failure of the Company
to offer to renew the Agreement on terms that are based on competitive practices for companies of comparable size and standing in the same industry, or (3) by Executive for Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). shall hereby be amended to state as follows: 
 Severance. 
 (a)
Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by reason of the failure of the Company
to offer to renew the Agreement on terms and conditions at least equal to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement executed on November 3, 2005, which shall be deemed to include a Base Salary and Target Bonus at least equal to the
Executive’s Base Salary and Target Bonus at such time, or (3) by Executive for Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D, Executive shall be entitled to the
benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). 







 The terms of this Amendment shall have no force and effect on any other provision of the Employment
Agreement, including subsections (i) through (v) of Section 5(a). Upon execution, the terms of this Amendment shall be incorporated into the Employment Agreement and shall become binding and enforceable to the same extent and under
the same terms and conditions as all other provisions in the Employment Agreement when executed on November 3, 2005. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	MIRANT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its:	 	SVP, Administration
	
	MIRANT SERVICES, LLC
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its:	 	SVP, Administration
	
	 
	S. Linn Williams
§ 405.2417 Visiting nurse services: Determination of shortage of agencies. A shortage of home health agencies exists if the Secretary determines that the RHC or FQHC: ( a ) Is located in a county, parish, or similar geographic area in which there is no participating home health agency or adequate home health services are not available to patients of the RHC or FQHC.
( b ) Has (or expects to have) patients whose permanent residences are not within the area serviced by a participating home health agency.
( c ) Has (or expects to have) patients whose permanent residences are not within a reasonable traveling distance, based on climate and terrain, of a participating home health agency.
[43 FR 8261, Mar. 1, 1978, as amended at 79 FR 25476, May 2, 2014]
#### Grover Louis TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. AB-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 1981.

Grover Louis Turner, in pro. per.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief. In July 1978, the *1077appellant was adjudicated guilty of second degree murder, and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The trial court ordered him to serve five years of this prison sentence, and the balance of the sentence was suspended, with the appellant to be placed on probation for ten years. The appellant later filed a motion for post-con-vietion relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, and this motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Subsequent to the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission,*396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981). In *Villery,*the court held that:

> incarceration, pursuant to the split sentence alternatives found in sections 948.-01(4) and 948.03(2), which equals or exceeds one year is invalid. This applies to incarceration as a condition of probation *as well as to incarceration followed by a specified period of* probation.*... this decision applies retroactively.

*Id.*at 1111. In view of this language, the trial court’s order is reversed, and this cause is remanded for resentencing pursuant to the guidelines set forth in *Villery. See*396 So.2d at 1111-12.

SHAW, WENTWORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
**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 Quarterly report of Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Christopher Chipman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/
              Christopher ChipmanChristopher
                  Chipman
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                December
                  19, 2006
693 A.2d 201

#### Stella and Frank PEMPKOWSKI, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 29, 1997.

Decided May 20, 1997.

*24Anthony J. Baratía, Jenkintown, for Stella and Frank Pempkowski.

James T. Moughan, Philadelphia, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Order affirmed.

NIGRO, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

CAPPY, J., dissents.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Imposing Sanctions on Two Burmese State-Owned Enterprises

# 									Imposing Sanctions on Two Burmese State-Owned Enterprises							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 21, 2021

The Burmese military regime continues to ignore the will of the people of Burma to restore the country’s path to democracy. Instead of acceding to the clear aspirations of its citizens, the regime has intensified its violent crackdown, killing more than 650 people, including many children, and detaining more than 3,200 others since February 1.

Today, the United States is taking further action to restrict the regime’s access to key economic resources by designating two state-owned enterprises that benefit the regime as it engages in violence against the people of Burma. Myanma Timber Enterprise (MTE) and Myanmar Pearl Enterprise (MPE) are being designated pursuant to Executive Order 14014, for being a political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Burma.

Our action today reinforces our message to the military that the United States will continue to target specific funding channels and promote accountability for the coup and related violence. We will continue to support the people of Burma in their efforts to reject this coup, and we call on the military regime to cease violence, release all those unjustly detained, and restore Burma’s path to democracy.

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

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBurmaOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 483.410 Condition of participation: Governing body and management. ( a ) *Standard: Governing body.* The facility must identify an individual or individuals to constitute the governing body of the facility. The governing body must— ( 1 ) Exercise general policy, budget, and operating direction over the facility;
( 2 ) Set the qualifications (in addition to those already set by State law, if any) for the administrator of the facility; and
( 3 ) Appoint the administrator of the facility.
( b ) *Standard: Compliance with Federal, State, and local laws.* The facility must be in compliance with all applicable provisions of Federal, State and local laws, regulations and codes pertaining to health, safety, and sanitation.
( c ) *Standard: Client records.* ( 1 ) The facility must develop and maintain a recordkeeping system that includes a separate record for each client and that documents the client's health care, active treatment, social information, and protection of the client's rights.
( 2 ) The facility must keep confidential all information contained in the clients' records, regardless of the form or storage method of the records.
( 3 ) The facility must develop and implement policies and procedures governing the release of any client information, including consents necessary from the client, or parents (if the client is a minor) or legal guardian.
( 4 ) Any individual who makes an entry in a client's record must make it legibly, date it, and sign it.
( 5 ) The facility must provide a legend to explain any symbol or abbreviation used in a client's record.
( 6 ) The facility must provide each identified residential living unit with appropriate aspects of each client's record.
( d ) *Standard: Services provided under agreements with outside sources.* ( 1 ) If a service required under this subpart is not provided directly, the facility must have a written agreement with an outside program, resource, or service to furnish the necessary service, including emergency and other health care.
( 2 ) The agreement must— ( i ) Contain the responsibilities, functions, objectives, and other terms agreed to by both parties; and
( ii ) Provide that the facility is responsible for assuring that the outside services meet the standards for quality of services contained in this subpart.
( 3 ) The facility must assure that outside services meet the needs of each client.
( 4 ) If living quarters are not provided in a facility owned by the ICF/IID, the ICF/IID remains directly responsible for the standards relating to physical environment that are specified in § 483.470 (a) through (g), (j) and (k).
( e ) *Standard: Licensure.* The facility must be licensed under applicable State and local law.
[53 FR 20496, June 3, 1988. Redesignated at 56 FR 48918, Sept. 26, 1991, and amended at 57 FR 43925, Sept. 23, 1992]