alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 433.54 Bona fide donations. ( a ) A bona fide donation means a provider-related donation, as defined in § 433.52, made to the State or unit of local government, that has no direct or indirect relationship, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, to Medicaid payments made to— ( 1 ) The health care provider;
( 2 ) Any related entity providing health care items and services; or
( 3 ) Other providers furnishing the same class of items or services as the provider or entity.
( b ) Provider-related donations will be determined to have no direct or indirect relationship to Medicaid payments if those donations are not returned to the individual provider, the provider class, or related entity under a hold harmless provision or practice, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) A hold harmless practice exists if any of the following applies: ( 1 ) The State (or other unit of government) provides for a direct or indirect non-Medicaid payment to those providers or others making, or responsible for, the donation, and the payment amount is positively correlated to the donation. A positive correlation includes any positive relationship between these variables, even if not consistent over time.
( 2 ) All or any portion of the Medicaid payment to the donor, provider class, or related entity, varies based only on the amount of the donation, including where Medicaid payment is conditional on receipt of the donation.
( 3 ) The State (or other unit of government) receiving the donation provides for any direct or indirect payment, offset, or waiver such that the provision of that payment, offset, or waiver directly or indirectly guarantees to return any portion of the donation to the provider (or other parties responsible for the donation).
( d ) CMS will presume provider-related donations to be bona fide if the voluntary payments, including, but not limited to, gifts, contributions, presentations or awards, made by or on behalf of individual health care providers to the State, county, or any other unit of local government does not exceed— ( 1 ) $5,000 per year in the case of an individual provider donation; or
( 2 ) $50,000 per year in the case of a donation from any health care organizational entity.
( e ) To the extent that a donation presumed to be bona fide contains a hold harmless provision, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, it will not be considered a bona fide donation. When provider-related donations are not bona fide, CMS will deduct this amount from the State's medical assistance expenditures before calculating FFP. This offset will apply to all years the State received such donations and any subsequent fiscal year in which a similar donation is received.
[57 FR 55138, Nov. 24, 1992, as amended at 73 FR 9698, Feb. 22, 2008]
# C_2006086EN.01002801.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council

(Case T-278/03) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China - Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility)

(2006/C 86/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Van Mannekus & Co. BV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Bleier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talaber Ricz, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Application for

annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 985/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/1999 on imports of magnesium oxide originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 1)

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The application is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Council;

| 3. | The Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

1

---
§ 433.145 Assignment of rights to benefits—State plan requirements. ( a ) A State plan must provide that, as a condition of eligibility, each legally able applicant or beneficiary is required to: ( 1 ) Assign to the Medicaid agency his or her rights, or the rights of any other individual eligible under the plan for whom he or she can legally make an assignment, to medical support and to payment for medical care from any third party;
( 2 ) Cooperate with the agency in establishing the identity of a child's parents and in obtaining medical support and payments, unless the individual establishes good cause for not cooperating, and except for individuals described in § 435.116 of this chapter (pregnant women), who are exempt from cooperating in establishing the identity of a child's parents and obtaining medical support and payments from, or derived from, the non-custodial parent of a child; and
( 3 ) Cooperate in identifying and providing information to assist the Medicaid agency in pursuing third parties who may be liable to pay for care and services under the plan, unless the individual establishes good cause for not cooperating.
( b ) A State plan must provide that the requirements for assignments, cooperation in establishing paternity and obtaining support, and cooperation in identifying and providing information to assist the State in pursuing any liable third party under §§ 433.146 through 433.148 are met.
( c ) A State plan must provide that the assignment of rights to benefits obtained from an applicant or beneficiary is effective only for services that are reimbursed by Medicaid.
[55 FR 48606, Nov. 21, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 4907, Jan. 19, 1993; 81 FR 86450, Nov. 30, 2016]
#### § 442.10 State plan requirement.

A State plan must provide that requirements of this subpart are met.
• fOLEY

r-DL FOLEY

& LARDNE

R LLP

1
·

**c** 14 SEP 19 PI\ 6: 03 Sep

t ember
16, 2014 U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency-Region

6 At

t n: Dayan

a Med in a 1 44 5 Ross

A ve nue

#
1 200 Dallas, TX 752 02-273

3

ATTORNEYS

AT lAW 777 EAS
T W

I SCONSIN AVEN UE MI LWAUKEE,

W

I 53 202-53
06 414

. 271.2400
TEL 414 .297
.4 900

F AX WWW

. FOLEY.CO

M WRITER

'S D

I RECT LINE 414

. 297.5832 mth

i mke@fo

l ey.com
EM A

I L CLIENT

/ MATT

E R NU MBE

R 1 05230-0103 R e:

D o mtar A.W. LLC
's Supplemental

R espo nse to Reque

s t to Pro

v ide Inf orma tion Pursuant

to Clean Air Act D ear M
s . Medi na: E nclosed please find the sig ned and notarized Affidavi

t of Annabeth Reitter
for the foll ow-u

p r es ponses sub m itted
to U.S.

E P A o n September

12 ,20 14. If you have

a ny questions

, pl eas

e call. Enclosure cc: Annabeth Reit
te r BOSTON BRUSSE

L S CH

I CAG O DETROI

T

JA CKSONV

I LL E LOS AN GELES MA D

I SO N MIAMI

MILW AUKEE N E W YORK ORlANDO SACRAMENTO Very truly yo urs

, Mark
A. Thimke S A N DIEGO SAN FRA
N C

I SC O S HANGHAI S ILI CO N VA LLEY

TAL lAH ASSEE TA MPA TOKYO WASHINGTON

, D.C

.

4 841-9

4 35

- 958

1. 1AFFIDAVITOFANNABETHREITTERSTATEOFWISCONSIN))ss.COUNTYOFWOOD)4852·9933·5454.1A.nnabethReitter,beingfirstdulyswornonoath,statesasfollows:(1)IamCorporateManager,EnvironmentalRegulationforDomtarCorporation("Domtar")locatedat301PointeBasseAvenue,Nekoosa,Wisconsin54457.(2)ImakethisaffidavitinsupportofDomtar'sresponsetotheadditionalquestionsraisedbytheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency("U.S.EPA")pursuanttoSection114oftheCleanAirActforinformationregardingDomtar'sAshdown,ArkansasmilldatedJune4,2014,andreceivedbyDomtaronJune9,2014(the"Response").(3)TheobjectionsassertedintheResponseareauthorizedbyDomtar.(4)DomtarhascompletedadiligentrecordsearchandadiligentinterviewingprocesswithemployeeswhomayhaverelevantknowledgeoftheoperationsandactivitiesattheAshdownmillthatarethesubjectoftheResponse.(5)Tothebestofmyknowledge,basedupontheinformationcurrentlyavailabletoDomtarandsubjecttotheobjectionsassertedintheResponse,thisResponseistrue,correctandaccurate.Domtarreservestherighttorevise,amendand/orupdatetheResponseinthefutureifDomtarobtainsadditionalrelevantorresponsiveinformation.AnnabethReitterCorporateManager,EnvironmentalRegulation
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHAN-Based Monopropellant Propulsion System with ApplicationsNASA is developing a new monopropellant propulsion system for small, cost-driven spacecraft with AV requirements in the range of 10-150 m/sec. This system is based on a hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN)/water/fuel monopropellant blend which is extremely dense, environmentally benign, and promises good performance and simplicity. State-of-art (SOA) small spacecraft typically employ either hydrazine or high pressure stored gas. Herein, a 'typical' small satellite bus is used to illustrate how a HAN-based monopropellant propulsion system fulfills small satellite propulsion requirements by providing mass and/or volume savings of SOA hydrazine monopropellants with the cost benefits of a stored nitrogen gas.Document ID19970010493Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJankovsky, Robert S.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Oleson, Steven R.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-10619NAS 1.15:107407NASA-TM-107407Accession Number97N15699Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-1B-1BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010493.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### AMERICAN SCANTIC LINE, Inc., Libelant-Appellee, v. THE Tug B. M. THOMAS and The Warner Company, Claimant-Respondent-Appellant. The WARNER COMPANY, as Owner of THE LIGHTER NO. 146, Cross-Libelant-Appellant, v. THE Steamship SCANPENN and American Scantic Line, Inc., Claimant-Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 117, 118.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1935.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and Eugene Underwood, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee and the Scanpenn.

Purdy & Purdy, of New York City (John E. Purdy and Edmund F. Lamb, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant Warner Co.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decrees (6 F. Supp. 745) affirmed.
§ 426.489 Board remands. ( a ) *Notice when case is remanded to the ALJ.* If the Board remands a case to the ALJ, the Board— ( 1 ) Notifies each aggrieved party who sought the LCD review, through his or her representative or at his or her last known address, the contractor, and CMS of the Board's remand decision; and
( 2 ) Explains why the case is being remanded and the specific actions ordered by the Board.
( b ) *Action by an ALJ on remand.* An ALJ takes any action that is ordered by the Board and may take any additional action that is not inconsistent with the Board's remand order.
§ 436.120 Qualified pregnant women and children who are not qualified family members. ( a ) The Medicaid agency must provide Medicaid to a pregnant woman whose pregnancy has been medically verified and who— ( 1 ) Would be eligible for an AFDC cash payment (or would be eligible for an AFDC cash payment if coverage under the State's AFDC plan included the AFDC-unemployed parents program) if her child had been born and was living with her in the month of payment;
( 2 ) Is a member of a family that would be eligible for an AFDC cash payment if the State's AFDC plan included an AFDC-unemployed parents program; or
( 3 ) Meets the income and resource requirements of the State's approved AFDC plan. In determining whether the woman meets the AFDC income and resource requirements, the unborn child or children are considered members of the household, and the woman's family is treated as though deprivation exists.
( b ) The provisions of paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section are effective October 1, 1984. The provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section are effective July 1, 1986.
( c ) The agency must provide Medicaid to children who meet all of the following criteria: ( 1 ) They are born after September 30, 1983;
( 2 ) Effective October 1, 1988, they are under age 6 (or if designated by the State, any age that exceeds age 6 but does not exceed age 8), and effective October 1, 1989 they are under age 7 (or if designated by the State, any age that exceeds age 7 but does not exceed age 8); and
( 3 ) They meet the income and resource requirements of the State's approved AFDC plan.
[52 FR 43072, Nov. 9, 1987, as amended at 55 FR 48610, Nov. 21, 1990; 58 FR 48614, Sept. 17, 1993]
#### § 435.300 Scope.

This subpart specifies the option for coverage of medically needy individuals.
Exhibit
      32.1





**Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
      Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
      period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
      of
      operations as of and for the periods covered therein.








/s/
                William G. Smith, Jr.William
                G. Smith, Jr.Chairman,
                President, andChief
                Executive Officer





Date:
      May
      9, 2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie HAMILTON.

No. 54967.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 1974.

Crawford A. Rose, Jr., Rayville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Don K. Carroll, Dist. Atty., Lowen B. Loftin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

SANDERS, Chief Justice.

The Grand Jury indicted Willie Hamilton for aggravated battery. See LSA-R.S. 14:34. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial judge sentenced him to a term of one and a half years in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections.

Defendant appeals, relying upon a single bill of exceptions for the reversal of his conviction.

The prosecution arose from an incident in which the defendant shot Rufus Cocker-ham, a neighbor, during an argument. At the trial, the State called Albert Weems, a municipal policeman; Bobby Joe Caviness, a deputy sheriff; and Drusilla Jones, a neighbor, who witnessed the shooting. After Drusilla Jones had completed her testimony, the State recalled Deputy Sheriff Caviness for identification of the weapon.

On cross examination, defense counsel asked the Deputy Sheriff whether he had a tape recording of a statement that he had taken from Drusilla Jones in preparation for the trial. He replied that he did.

Defense Counsel then made the following motion:

> “Your Honor, at this time I move that those tapes should be brought to Court and played for the jury to see if there is any variation between what was told and what she testified to.”

The Court denied the motion, and defense counsel reserved a bill of exceptions.

In this Court, defendant contends that the statement was taken in preparation for the trial and that the defendant should be allowed to review it to determine if it was the same or at variance with the testimony of Drusilla Jones.

The State, on the other hand, contends that the recorded statement was an investigatory interview and inadmissible in evidence.

The defendant cites no authority in support of his position, and we have found none.

*268The defense motion required that the recorded statement be presented to the jury. • If impeachment was intended, the prescribed procedure was not followed. The witness, Drusilla Jones, had already completed her testimony and left the witness stand. Moreover, no foundation had been laid for her impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement. See LSA-R.S. 15:493; State v. Prieur, La., 277 So.2d 134 (1973); State v. Rogers, 256 La. 447, 236 So.2d 795 (1970).

The recording was no more than an unsworn out-of-court statement of a witness who had already testified. Hence, it was inadmissible in evidence, and the trial judge properly overruled the defense motion.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lawrence BLACKWELL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 67195.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1980.

In re Lawrence Blackwell applying for remedial writ. Parish of Orleans. No. 266-351.

Denied.
§ 436.116 Families terminated from AFDC because of increased earnings or hours of employment. ( a ) If a family loses AFDC solely because of increased income from employment or increased hours of employment, the agency must continue to provide Medicaid for 4 months to all members of the family if— ( 1 ) The family received AFDC in any 3 or more months during the 6-month period immediately before the month in which it became ineligible for AFDC; and
( 2 ) At least one member of the family is employed throughout the 4-month period, although this need not be the same member for the whole period.
( b ) The 4 calendar month period begins on the date AFDC is terminated. If AFDC benefits are terminated retroactively, the 4 calendar month period also begins retroactively with the first month in which AFDC was erroneously paid.
[43 FR 45218, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 24887, Apr. 11, 1980]
# C_2006010EN.01001901.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/19

---

Appeal chamber

(2006/C 10/36)

On 6 December 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 12 of its Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007 appeals brought against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal are to be assigned, as soon as the application initiating proceedings has been lodged and without prejudice to subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to an appeal chamber.

The appeal chamber is to be composed of the President of the Court of First Instance and of the Presidents of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers (all Extended Composition).

For the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007 the following are in consequence attached to the appeal chamber sitting with five Judges:

Mr Vesterdorf, President, and Messrs Jaeger, Pirrung, Vilaras and Legal, Judges.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Philip Earl BRIDGES.

No. 80-KH-2566.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Philip Earl Bridges, applying for remedial writ. Parish of Terrebonne.

Granted. Motion transferred to District Court for action.
# C_2006103EN.01003002.xml

| 29.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/30

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4049 — Novartis/Chiron)

(2006/C 103/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4049. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4049. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Angelo MILTON v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 80-KH-2320.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 2, 1981.

Elizabeth Boudreaux, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

Angelo Milton in pro. per.

William J. Guste, Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Sturgeon Jr., Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Writ recalled as improvidently granted. The record as a whole indicates that defendant’s guilty plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. See, State v. *Dunn,*390 So.2d 525 (La.1980).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth W. PERROW.

No. 63062.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Kenneth W. Perrow, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.
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-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 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
      ChipmanChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)December
      10, 2010
No. 00-86.

#### Kerstetter *v.*Pacific Scientific Co. et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.