alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 424.66 Payment to entities that provide coverage complementary to Medicare Part B. ( a ) *Conditions for payment.* Medicare may pay an entity for Part B services furnished by a physician or other supplier if the entity meets all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) Provides coverage of the service under a complementary health benefit plan (this is, the coverage that the plan provides is complementary to Medicare benefits and covers only the amount by which the Part B payment falls short of the approved charge for the service under the plan).
( 2 ) Has paid the person who provided the service an amount (including the amount payable under the Medicare program) that the person accepts as full payment.
( 3 ) Has the written authorization of the beneficiary (or of a person authorized to sign claims on his behalf under § 424.36) to receive the Part B payment for the services for which the entity pays.
( 4 ) Relieves the beneficiary of liability for payment for the service and will not seek any reimbursement from the beneficiary, his or her survivors or estate.
( 5 ) Submits any information CMS or the carrier may request, including an itemized physician or supplier bill, in order to apply the requirements under the Medicare program.
( 6 ) Identifies and excludes from its requests for payment all services for which Medicare is the secondary payer.
( b ) *Services paid for by the entity.* An entity is not required to pay and claim reimbursement for all Part B services furnished to members of its plans. However, if it does not pay and claim reimbursement for all those services, it must establish in advance precise criteria for identifying the services for which it will pay and claim reimbursement.
[53 FR 28388, July 28, 1988; 53 FR 40231, Oct. 14, 1988]
EXHIBIT 32
                                                               ----------

                       QUESTAR ASSESSMENT, INC.

                      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 Questar
Assessment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew L. Simon,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, James
J. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.



June 14, 2007                        /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                     --------------------------
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer


June 14, 2007                        /s/ JAMES J. WILLIAMS
                                     ---------------------------
                                     Chief Financial Officer

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 QUESTAR ASSESSMENT, INC. AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY QUESTAR ASSESSMENT, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### N. V. HULMAN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF PALM BEACH, Respondent.

No. 81-957.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Lewis, Vegosen & Rosenbach, Palm Beach, and Larry Klein and Jane Kreusler-Walsh, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

John C. Randolph of Johnston, Sasser, Randolph & Weaver, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to attempt to state a proper claim for relief by petition for writ of certiorari. See *Pridgen v. Board of County Commissioners of Orange County,*389 So.2d 259 (Fla.5th DCA 1980).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY, and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
#### § 423.6 Cost-sharing in beneficiary education and enrollment-related costs.

The requirements of section 1857(e)(2) of the Act and § 422.6 of this chapter with regard to the payment of fees established by CMS for cost sharing of enrollment related costs apply to PDP sponsors under Part D.
#### HARRY W. BRATTON, Respondent, v. RENA PORTER, Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

November 21, 1910.

INSTRUCTIONS: Assuming Matter in Issue. Where it is an issue whether there was any difference in the actual rental value of land and the rent agreed upon, it is reversible error for an instruction to assume there was a difference.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Alonso D.*• *Burnes,*Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*409
      *John A. Cross*and *B. II. Musser*for appellant.

(1) The court did commit error in refusing defendant’s instruction. We understand it to he the law, that in all cases of ouster *in pais*when there has been no judgment, the burden of proof is upon the covenantee to establish the paramount title to which he has yielded. Deckran v. Disen, 23 Mo. 28 ; Hall v. Bray, 51 Mo. 288a; Morgan v. Railroad, 63 Mo. 129’; Egan v. Martin, 71 Mo. 65; Ward v. Ashbrook, 71 Mo. 515; Matheny v. Mason, 73 Mo. 677; Lambert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 602. In this case the plaintiff has wholly failed to show, that the paramount title or right to possession of the land was in Collins. (2) The court did commit error in giving plaintiff’s instruction number three. This instruction assumes that there is a difference in the rent contracted to be paid for the use of the land and the rental value of the land. That was one of the contended questions before the jury in this case. It was therefore, an error prejudicial to the defendant. Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475; Wilkerson v. Eilers, 114 Mo. 252.

*J. A. Clark*for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This is an action for damages' based on a lease of lands by defendant to plaintiff for a period of one year. The judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court.

It appears that plaintiff leased a farm of defendant for the period of one year at a certain rent, the greater part payable in money and the balance in work. Plaintiff failed to occupy the premises, as he claims through the fault of defendant in not securing him the possession, and he claimed at the trial that the actual rental value of the land was more than he was to pay to defendant and that he was thereby damaged in a sum equalling the difference between such *410actual rental value and the price at which he was to have it. Whether there was difference in favor of plaintiff was the issue. In this state of the case plaintiff obtained an instruction, number three, in which it is assumed there was a difference. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. [Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475; Wilkerson v. Eilers, 114 Mo. 245, 252; Railroad v. Stock Yards, 120 Mo. 541, 557; Stoner v. Royar, 200 Mo. 444.]

There were other matters complained of as error which, in view of the foregoing, will not be necessary to notice.

Reversed and remanded.

All concur.
§ 456.142 UR plan requirements for medical care evaluation studies. ( a ) The UR plan must describe the methods that the committee uses to select and conduct medical care evaluation studies under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( b ) The UR plan must provide that the UR committee— ( 1 ) Determines the methods to be used in selecting and conducting medical care evaluation studies in the hospital;
( 2 ) Documents for each study— ( i ) Its results; and
( ii ) How the results have been used to make changes to improve the quality of care and promote more effective and efficient use of facilities and services;
( 3 ) Analyzes its findings for each study; and
( 4 ) Takes action as needed to— ( i ) Correct or investigate further any deficiencies or problems in the review process for admissions or continued stay cases;
( ii ) Recommend more effective and efficient hospital care procedures; or
( iii ) Designate certain providers or categories of admissions for review prior to admission.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.326 Reporting and returning of overpayments. ( a ) *Terminology.* For purposes of this section— *Applicable reconciliation* occurs on the date of the annual final deadline for risk adjustment data submission described at § 422.310(g), which is announced by CMS each year.
*Funds* means any payment that an MA organization has received that is based on data submitted by the MA organization to CMS for payment purposes, including § 422.308(f) and § 422.310.
*Overpayment* means any funds that an MA organization has received or retained under title XVIII of the Act to which the MA organization, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled under such title.
( b ) *General rule.* If an MA organization has identified that it has received an overpayment, the MA organization must report and return that overpayment in the form and manner set forth in this section.
( c ) *Identified overpayment.* The MA organization has identified an overpayment when the MA organization has determined, or should have determined through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that the MA organization has received an overpayment.
( d ) *Reporting and returning of an overpayment.* An MA organization must report and return any overpayment it received no later than 60 days after the date on which it identified it received an overpayment, unless otherwise directed by CMS for purposes of § 422.311. ( 1 ) *Reporting.* An MA organization must notify CMS, of the amount and reason for the overpayment, using a notification process determined by CMS.
( 2 ) *Returning.* An MA organization must return identified overpayments in a manner specified by CMS.
( e ) *Enforcement.* Any overpayment retained by an MA organization is an obligation under 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(3) if not reported and returned in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( f ) *Look-back period.* An MA organization must report and return any overpayment identified for the 6 most recent completed payment years.
[79 FR 29958, May 23, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 340 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 340

  To terminate certain Border Patrol traffic checkpoint operations in 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Packard introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To terminate certain Border Patrol traffic checkpoint operations in 
                              California.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The Federal Government has responsibility to secure the 
        United States borders against the entry of illegal aliens.
            (2) It is far more effective and cost-efficient to prevent 
        the entry of illegal aliens at the border than the apprehension 
        and removal of illegal aliens after entry.
            (3) Border checkpoints located 60 miles inside the United 
        States border within the State of California are an inefficient 
        and ineffective use of border resources.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BORDER PATROL TRAFFIC CHECKPOINT 
              OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Termination.--Not later than 3 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Attorney General shall terminate the Border Patrol 
traffic checkpoint operations located in San Clemente, California, at 
interstate highway 5 and at Temecula, California, at interstate highway 
15.
    (b) Relocation of Resources.--Border Patrol agents and resources 
located at such checkpoint operations terminated under subsection (a) 
shall be relocated to the San Diego Border Patrol sector.
                                 <all>
```
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with OSCE Secretary General Helga Schmid

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with OSCE Secretary General Helga Schmid							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

January 24, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary Wendy R. Sherman spoke today with OSCE Secretary General Helga Schmid to discuss Russia’s destabilizing buildup of military forces on Ukraine’s borders.  They discussed ongoing efforts to urge Russia to pursue the path of diplomacy and de-escalation to end this crisis peacefully.  Deputy Secretary Sherman reiterated strong U.S. support for Poland’s proposal, as OSCE Chair, for a revitalized security dialogue at the OSCE.  The OSCE is an inclusive forum where all affected countries can discuss and address urgent and long-standing threats to European stability and security.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonOrganization for Security and Co-operation in EuropeRussiaUkraine

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on the 3+1 (Republic of Cyprus, Greece, Israel + United States) Foreign Ministerial  

# 									Joint Statement on the 3+1 (Republic of Cyprus, Greece, Israel + United States) Foreign Ministerial  							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 9, 2022

The following joint statement was released by the Governments of the United States, the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, and Israel on the occasion of today’s 3+1 Virtual Foreign Ministerial:

*Begin text:*

The foreign ministers of the Republic of Cyprus, Hellenic Republic, State of Israel plus the United States held a virtual meeting today to reaffirm their shared commitment to promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the Eastern Mediterranean.  In a critical period for Europe, the United States, and the world, the Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the 3+1 format and decided to intensify their cooperation in the areas of energy, economy, climate action, emergency preparedness, and counterterrorism*,* contributing to resilience, energy security, and interconnectivity in the region.  The 3+1 support additional initiatives such as the Negev Summit that promote cooperation in the region.  The Ministers condemned the recent horrific terror attacks against Israelis, including the May 5 terror attack in Elad.  The Ministers decided to develop a roadmap with tangible deliverables for the coming year, and to set the stage for a follow-on meeting before the end of 2022.

*End text.*

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsCyprusGreeceIsraelOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Alfacell Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kuslima Shogen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
|

October 14, 2008

/s/ KUSLIMA SHOGENKuslima Shogen
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer of Alfacell Corporation)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Alfacell Corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staffupon request.

---
#### Carl David GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-770.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Carl Green, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Carl Green, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.
Retirement and Savings Plan dated December 23, 2008



 Exhibit 10.19 to 2008 10-K 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 CONVERGYS CORPORATION RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN 
 (EGTRRA RESTATEMENT) 
 The Convergys
Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan is hereby amended in the following respect: 
 A new section 1.3.2 is added reading as follows:

 1.3.2 Effective April 10, 2008, the account balances of certain Plan Participants who were previously employed by
G&A Staffsourcing Inc. under the G&A Staffsourcing Inc. Multiple Employer 401(k) Plan (“G&A Plan”) were transferred to the Plan. As of the transfer date, the terms of the Plan shall govern, in all respects, including but not
limited to the investment, withdrawal and distribution of, the amounts transferred from the G&A Plan. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Convergys
Corporation has hereunto caused its name to be subscribed this 23rd day of December, 2008. 
  

			
	CONVERGYS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Patrick Dearing
	Title:	 	Sr. Director, Global Benefits
exv10w62








Exhibit 10.62




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.

1997 OUTSIDE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN




          POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. (the “Company”), having established the 1997 Outside
Directors Stock Option Plan, as amended through June 6, 2000, (the “Plan”), amended the
Plan on January 27, 2009, as follows:




     1. Section 6.1(b) of the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:




     ”(b) Annual Option. Each Outside Director (including any Director
who previously did not qualify as an Outside Director but who subsequently
becomes an Outside Director) shall be granted an Option to purchase ten
thousand (10,000) shares of Stock on each of his or her “Anniversary Dates”,
provided such person remains an Outside Director on such Anniversary Date
(an “Annual Option”) and provided that no Annual Option shall be granted
from January 27, 2009 to December 31, 2009. The Anniversary Date for an
Outside Director who was serving on the Board on the Effective Date shall be
the date which is twelve (12) months after the Effective Date and successive
anniversaries thereof. The Anniversary Date for an Outside Director who is
elected or appointed to the Board after the Effective Date shall be the date
which is twelve (12) months after such election or appointment and
successive anniversaries thereof.”
#### ALBERT J. BOTHWELL AND THE BOTHWELL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[54 C. Cls., 203 ; 254 U. S., 231.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for a portion of the amount claimed in the court below. On plaintiff’s appeal the judgment ivas *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The contract implied from a taking by the Government is a contract to pay for the property actually taken. .

Where construction of a Government dam flooded private land, destroyed the owner’s hay there stored, and forced him to remove his cattle and sell them at a loss, *lipid,*assuming an implied obligation to pay for the hay, there was none to pay the loss upon the cattle.

To review a judgment of the Court of Claims, the Government must appeal; it can not attack it on the claimant’s appeal.

Mr. Justice McReyNolds

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 6, 1920.
Exhibit 10.28


 


EARTHLINK, INC.


 


Board of Directors Compensation Plan


 


Effective January 2009


 


1.               Retainers


 


a.               Each independent
director receives a $35,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in advance
($17,500 following January Board meeting and $17,500 following July Board
meeting).


 


b.              The Lead Director
receives an additional $20,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in advance
($10,000 following the January Board meeting and $10,000 following the July Board
meeting).


 


c.               The Leadership and
Compensation Committee chair, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
chair and the Finance Committee chair each receive an additional $10,000 annual
retainer, paid semi-annually in advance ($5,000 following January Board
meeting and $5,000 following July Board meeting).


 


d.              The Audit Committee
chair receives an additional $20,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in
advance ($10,000 following January Board meeting and $10,000 following July Board
meeting).


 


2.               Meeting Fees


 


a.               Each independent
director is paid $1,000 for each full Board meeting and Committee meeting he or
she attends in person and $500 for each full Board meeting and Committee
meeting he or she attends telephonically.


 


3.               Restricted Stock
Units


 


a.               Independent
directors receive an initial grant when they join the Board of Restricted Stock
Units (RSUs) valued at $45,000.


 


b.              Additionally,
independent directors receive an annual grant of RSUs valued at $30,000 on the
first business day of January of each year.


 


c.               Additionally,
independent directors receive an annual grant of RSUs valued at $30,000 on the
date of the July Board meeting each year.


 


d.              RSUs will vest one
year from the date of grant, provided the director is serving as an independent
director at that time, and upon vesting may be received in shares of stock or
may be deferred into a deferred compensation plan.


 


i.      Note:  Each RSU is equal to one share of EarthLink
stock.  Upon vesting, the RSUs may be
received in shares of stock (in which case the recipient has taxable income equal
to the value of the shares received on the date of vesting), or may be deferred
into a deferred compensation plan where they continue to be equal to shares of
EarthLink stock but where receipt and taxation may be deferred to later dates.


 

















 


4.               Meeting Expenses


 


a.               EarthLink
reimburses directors for their expenses incurred in attending Board of
Directors and Committee meetings.


 


5.               Education Expenses


 


a.               EarthLink will pay
reasonable program fees and associated travel expenses for each director to
participate in one or more additional relevant director education
programs.  In selecting director
education programs, directors should consider general Board governance and
specific Committee focus.