alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 74-1366.

No. 74-1407.

#### Schaefer et al. *v.*First National Bank of Lincolnwood et al.; and Rodman & Renshaw *v.*Schaefer et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
§ 438.410 Expedited resolution of appeals. ( a ) *General rule.* Each MCO, PIHP, and PAHP must establish and maintain an expedited review process for appeals, when the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP determines (for a request from the enrollee) or the provider indicates (in making the request on the enrollee's behalf or supporting the enrollee's request) that taking the time for a standard resolution could seriously jeopardize the enrollee's life, physical or mental health, or ability to attain, maintain, or regain maximum function.
( b ) *Punitive action.* The MCO, PIHP, or PAHP must ensure that punitive action is not taken against a provider who requests an expedited resolution or supports an enrollee's appeal.
( c ) *Action following denial of a request for expedited resolution.* If the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP denies a request for expedited resolution of an appeal, it must— ( 1 ) Transfer the appeal to the timeframe for standard resolution in accordance with § 438.408(b)(2).
( 2 ) Follow the requirements in § 438.408(c)(2).
#### Michael Jesse BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1981.

Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Samuel R. Mandelbaum, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James S. Purdy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether appellant’s sentence is illegal under *Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission,*396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981). This point is raised for the first time on appeal, and because *Villery*suggests that our supreme court contemplated that this issue be brought to the attention of the trial court in the first instance, we do not consider it on this appeal. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s raising this issue in the trial court by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

GRIMES, A. C. J., and OTT and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
#### § 437.5 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*1945 Health Home Core Set* means the Core Set of Health Home Quality Measures related to the Medicaid health home benefit under section 1945 of the Act, established and updated annually as described in § 437.10(a).

*1945A Health Home Core Set* means the Core Set of Health Home Quality Measures related to the Medicaid health home benefit under section 1945A of the Act, established and updated annually as described in § 437.10(a).

*Adult Core Set* means the Core Set of Adult Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid established and updated annually as described in § 437.10(a).

*Attribution rules* means the process Medicaid and CHIP and other payers use to assign beneficiaries to a specific health care program or delivery system for the purpose of calculating the measures on the Core Sets.

*Behavioral health* means a beneficiary's whole emotional and mental well-being, which includes, but is not limited to, the prevention, treatment, and recovery of mental disorders including substance use disorders.

*Behavioral health measure* means a quality measure that could be used to evaluate the quality of and improve the health care provided to beneficiaries with, or at-risk for a behavioral health disorder(s).

*Child Core Set* means the Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures for Children in Medicaid and CHIP, established and updated annually as described in § 437.10(a).

*Core Sets* means the Child Core Set, the Adult Core Set, the section 1945 Health Home Core Set, and the section 1945A Health Home Core Set, collectively.

*Health Home Core Sets* means, collectively, the two Core Sets of Health Home Quality Measures related to the two Medicaid health home benefits under sections 1945 and 1945A of the Act, established and updated annually as described in § 437.10(a).

*Standardized format* means the format provided by the reporting system that States are required to utilize to submit Core Sets data to CMS.
#### Robert McCONKEY and Bobbie McConkey Gray, wife of Ray Gray v. Robert PINTO and Clarence Pinto.

No. 54570.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 11, 1974.

In re: Robert McConkey and Mrs. Bobbie McConkey applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 289 So.2d 540.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

MARCUS, J., recused.
# C_2006060EN.01000301.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

1

(Directive 69/335 - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent company (the grandparent company) in favour of its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) - Capital duty - Increase of capital - Payment ‘to the share premium account’ - Increase in the assets of the company - Increase in the value of shares - Provision of services by a member - Payment made by a member of a member - Payment to a subsidiary - ‘Real recipient’ - Levying of capital duty once only (in the Community) - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Freedom of establishment - National practice exempting a (subsidiary) capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-subsidiary company) is also established in that Member State)

(2006/C 60/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits,, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof and the sixth recital in its preamble, precludes a Member State from levying duty on a (subsidiary) capital company in respect of a contribution paid by its parent company (the grandparent company) to its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary).

---

(1)  OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFlight evaluation of a simplified gross thrust calculation technique using an F100 turbofan engine in an F-15 airplaneA simplified gross thrust calculation technique was evaluated in flight tests on an F-15 aircraft using prototype F100-PW-100 engines. The technique relies on afterburner duct pressure measurements and empirical corrections to an ideal one-dimensional analysis to determine thrust. In-flight gross thrust calculated by the simplified method is compared to gross thrust calculated by the engine manufacturer's gas generator model. The evaluation was conducted at Mach numbers from 0.6 to 1.5 and at altitudes from 6000 meters to 13,700 meters. The flight evaluation shows that the simplified gross thrust method and the gas generator method agreed within plus or minus 3 percent. The discrepancies between the data generally fell within an uncertainty band derived from instrumentation errors and recording system resolution.Document ID19810006485Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsKurtenbach, F. J.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA, United States)*Burcham, F. W., Jr.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1981Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberH-1118NASA-TP-1782Accession Number81N15000Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-51-34Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810006485.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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 26, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-26-2000
<CASH>                                               4,087
<SECURITIES>                                         8,920
<RECEIVABLES>                                       19,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,008
<INVENTORY>                                         28,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    65,559
<PP&E>                                              49,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      99,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               13,793
<BONDS>                                              1,449
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               991
<OTHER-SE>                                          79,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        99,222
<SALES>                                             80,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    80,922
<CGS>                                               44,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       44,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    30,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,131
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .40



</TABLE>
41367.

#### TRIMM v. KEHELEY & COMPANY, INC.

Argued June 8, 1965

Decided June 15, 1965.

*Haas, Dunaway, Shelfer & Haas, George A. Haas, Hugh F. Newberry,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Sidney F. Wheeler,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

A general demurrer to the petition was sustained by Chief Judge J. Wilson Parker of the Civil Court of Fulton County. The bill of exceptions was presented to and certified by Judge James E. Webb, nothing appearing as to why it was not presented to and certified by Judge Parker. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions on this ground is good, *Moss v. Moss,*101 Ga. App. 237 (113 SE2d 415), and it must be sustained.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Arthur Higgins, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.


                                               By: /s/ Arthur J. Higgins
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Arthur J. Higgins
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)

      February 17, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       61
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig A. Tooman, Executive Vice President, Finance, and 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 to my knowledge:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.

|             |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                 
|------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  |  |  | /s/ CRAIGA. TOOMAN                                                                                                                              
|May 10, 2010 |  |  |  | Craig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
      (Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)



---
No. 99-8996.

#### Olguin *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeCommunications, Outreach, and Partnerships...Global Air Quality Fellowship

# 									Global Air Quality Fellowship							

Office of Management Strategy and Solutions

The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are seeking candidates for an unpaid, part-time fellowship starting in Winter 2023. The fellows will volunteer for one year to provide virtual technical and/or policy support for an U.S. embassy or consulate. The application period will end on January 11, 2023.

**Eligibility**

Applicants should:
        - have air quality monitoring expertise and understanding of PM 2.5 health impacts.
        - understand U.S. policy for air pollution control and monitoring.
        - have supervisor approval to apply for and join this program.
        - work for a university, non-profit institution, or local, state, or federal government agency.
        - be U.S. citizens.

**The Fellowship:**
        - The fellow is expected to provide 10-20 hours each month of remote support to their host embassy through phone calls, webinars, etc.
        - There may be opportunities for sponsored overseas travel to visit the program, collaborate with the host foreign government, provide training to US staff and other entities, pending COVID-19 travel restrictions and availability of funding.
        - Fellows are invited to join monthly professional development webinars to enhance their knowledge of the Department of State and discuss new topics and developments in air quality.

Fellows do not require or obtain a security clearance for this program. Fellows will remain at their home offices and agencies, except for potential travel to the embassy or consulate at discretion of the post.

**Apply by filling out the form here.**

Applicants will be requested to share their resume and references.

Please send any questions to **DOSAir@state.gov**.

Tags

Greening Diplomacy InitiativeSustainability

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
No. 99-8933.

#### Auborg et al. *v.*Massachusetts.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
§ 436.122 Pregnant women eligible for extended coverage. ( a ) The Medicaid agency must provide categorically needy Medicaid eligibility for an extended period following termination of pregnancy to women who, while pregnant, applied for, were eligible for, and received Medicaid services on the day that their pregnancy ends. This period extends from the last day of pregnancy through the end of the month in which a 60-day period, beginning on the last day of the pregnancy, ends. Eligibility must be provided, regardless of changes in the woman's financial circumstances that may occur within this extended period. These pregnant women are eligible for the extended period for all services under the plan that are pregnancy-related (as defined in § 440.210(c)(1) of this subchapter).
( b ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section apply to Medicaid furnished on or after April 7, 1986.
[55 FR 48610, Nov. 21, 1990]
**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 April 30, 2008 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. DieterleGifford
                A. DieterleChief
                Executive OfficerJune
                11, 2008
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.245 Notifying the applicant or beneficiary of a State agency decision. The agency must notify the applicant or beneficiary in writing of— ( a ) The decision; and
( b ) His right to request a State agency hearing or seek judicial review, to the extent that either is available to him.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,905,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  773,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,678,457
<PP&E>                                     171,419,099
<DEPRECIATION>                           (165,576,632)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,520,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,317,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,203,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,520,924
<SALES>                                      5,542,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,609,183
<CGS>                                        1,681,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,681,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               270,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,657,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,657,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,657,279
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2,412
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2,412


</TABLE>