alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.440 Existing comprehensive State-based coverage. ( a ) *General requirements.* Existing comprehensive State-based health benefits is coverage that— ( 1 ) Includes coverage of a range of benefits;
( 2 ) Is administered or overseen by the State and receives funds from the State;
( 3 ) Is offered in the State of New York, Florida or Pennsylvania; and
( 4 ) Was offered as of August 5, 1997.
( b ) *Modifications.* A State may modify an existing comprehensive State-based coverage program described in paragraph (a) of this section if— ( 1 ) The program continues to include a range of benefits;
( 2 ) The State submits an actuarial report demonstrating that the modification does not reduce the actuarial value of the coverage under the program below the lower of either— ( i ) The actuarial value of the coverage under the program as of August 5, 1997; or
( ii ) The actuarial value of a benchmark benefit package as described in § 457.430 evaluated at the time the modification is requested.
#### Alvina DEMARAS, Petitioner, v. Edward FEDAS, d/b/a Honda North Motorcycle Shop, Respondent.

No. 46305.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 4, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KR ISLEE C ARDINAL HALL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. APOLLO GR OUP, INC . ; THE UNIVER SITY OF PHOENIX, INC ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16916 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-01404-LHK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia L uc y H. Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Krisle e C ardina l Ha ll a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing he r dive rsity

a c tion a lle ging va

rious c l a im s in c onne c tion with her e nrollm e nt in higher e duc ation de gre e progra m s . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28



# FIL ED JUN 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , we de ny Ha ll’ s re que s ts for ora l a

rgum e nt.U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm .

W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009); se ealso Gre e nw o od v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ W e will not manufa c ture argum e nts for a

n a ppe lla nt, a nd a ba re a sse rtion doe s not pre s e rve a c la im [.] ” ). Ac c ordingly , we do not c onside r whe the r the distric t c ourt prope rly dism i sse d Ha ll’ s c om

p la int. W e re je c t a s without me rit Ha ll’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt wa s bia s e d a ga i nst he r or e n ga g e d in judic ia l m i sc onduc t. Se eUnite d State s v . He rnande z , 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th C ir. 1997) (e xpla ining tha t unde r both 28 U.S.C . § 144 a

n d 28 U.S.C . § 455, thesubsta ntive sta n da rd for re c u s a l is whe the r

“ a re a sona

ble pe rson with knowle dge of a ll the fa c ts would c onc lude tha t the judge ’ s im

p artia l ity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)); se ealso United State s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [J] udic ia l rulings or information a c q uire d by the c ourt in its judic ia l c a

pa c ity will ra

re ly support re c usa l .” ). All pe nding m otions a

nd re que sts a

re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.
1 4 - 1 6 9 1 6 2
# C_2006131EN.01001201.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-205/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Failure to take account of seniority and professional experience acquired in the public service of other Member States - Article 39 EC - Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)

(2006/C 131/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant): Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

Defendant):

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — Access to the Spanish civil service — Obligation to recognise from an economic point of view the services undertaken by Community citizens in the public service of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt a law which expressly provides, in respect of the Spanish civil service, for account to be taken, for financial purposes, of previous periods of employment in the public service of another Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt a law which expressly provides, in respect of the Spanish civil service, for account to be taken, for financial purposes, of previous periods of employment in the public service of another Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.06.2004.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3402 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3402

To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to provide 
for rental assistance payments to assist certain owners of manufactured 
       homes who rent the lots on which their homes are located.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 1996

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to provide 
for rental assistance payments to assist certain owners of manufactured 
       homes who rent the lots on which their homes are located.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mobile Home Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937.

    Section 8(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437f(j)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after ``such real 
        property'' the following; ``or to make assistance payments as 
        provided in paragraph (9) to the families owning the 
        manufactured homes''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(9) In the case only of a low-income family that owns a 
manufactured home, rents the real property on which it is located, and 
to whom assistance under this subsection has been made available, the 
public housing agency making such assistance available shall enter into 
a contract to make assistance payments under this subsection directly 
to the family (rather than to the owner of such real property) if--
            ``(1) the owner of the real property refuses to enter into 
        a contract to receive assistance payments pursuant to paragraph 
        (1)(A);
            ``(2) the family was residing in such manufactured home on 
        such real property at the time such assistance was initially 
        made available on behalf of the family;
            ``(3) the family provides such assurances to the agency, as 
        the Secretary may require, to ensure that amounts from the 
        assistance payments are used for rental of the real property; 
        and
            ``(4) the rental of the real property otherwise complies 
        with the requirements for assistance under this subsection.
A contract pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to the 
provisions of paragraph (2) and any other provisions applicable to 
contracts under this subsection, except that the Secretary may provide 
such exceptions as the Secretary considers appropriate to facilitate 
the provision of assistance under this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert M. McHALE v. LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS, INC., et al.

No. 63096.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Lake Charles American Press, Inc., et al., applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Calcasieu.

Writ denied. No abuse of discretion.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Christine WHITE, Respondent.

No. 45902.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 299 So.2d 661.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
§ 423.2508 LI NET benefits and beneficiary protections. ( a ) *Formulary.* The LI NET program provides access to all Part D drugs under an open formulary.
( b ) *Network.* The LI NET sponsor must allow its network and out-of-network pharmacies that are in good standing to process claims under the program. Licensed pharmacies are considered to be in good standing for the LI NET program so long as they: are not revoked from Medicare under § 424.535; do not appear on the Office of Inspector General's list of entities excluded from Federally funded health care programs pursuant to section 1128 of the Act or from Medicare and State health care programs under section 1156 of the Act (unless waived by the OIG); do not appear on the preclusion list as defined at § 423.100; and do not have a determination by the LI NET sponsor of a credible allegation of fraud as defined at § 423.4.
( c ) *Safety.* The following provisions necessary to improve patient safety and ensure appropriate dispensing of medication apply to the LI NET program and LI NET sponsor, as applicable: ( 1 ) Sections 423.153(b) and (c) for dispensing and point-of-sale safety edits;
( 2 ) Section 423.154 for appropriate dispensing of prescription drugs in long-term care facilities;
( 3 ) Sections 423.159 and 423.160 for electronic prescribing, excepting the requirements pertaining to formulary standards in § 423.160(b)(5);
( 4 ) Section 423.162 for QIO activities; and
( 5 ) Section 423.165 for compliance deemed on the basis of accreditation.
( d ) *Cost sharing.* ( 1 ) LI NET beneficiaries under § 423.2504(a)(1) will pay the applicable cost sharing for their low-income category as established for each year in the Rate Announcement publication specified in § 422.312 of this chapter.
( 2 ) LI NET beneficiaries under § 423.2504(a)(2) will pay the cost sharing associated with the category of non-institutionalized full-benefit dual eligible individuals with incomes above 100% of the Federal poverty level and full-subsidy-non-FBDE individuals. If the beneficiary is later confirmed to belong to a different LIS category, the LI NET sponsor must reimburse the beneficiary for the difference between the cost sharing they paid versus what they would have paid in their LIS category.
( e ) *Appeals.* LI NET enrollees have rights with respect to Part D grievances, coverage determinations, and appeals processes set out in subpart M of this part.
Exhibit 32
 
 
 
 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 Annual Report of Healthways, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Ben R. Leedle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alfred Lumsdaine, 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Ben R. Leedle, Jr.
 Ben R. Leedle, Jr.
 Chief Executive Officer
 March 15, 2011
 
 
 
 /s/ Alfred Lumsdaine
 Alfred Lumsdaine
 Chief Financial Officer
 March 15, 2011
§ 440.240 Comparability of services for groups. Except as limited in § 440.250— ( a ) The plan must provide that the services available to any categorically needy beneficiary under the plan are not less in amount, duration, and scope than those services available to a medically needy beneficiary; and
( b ) The plan must provide that the services available to any individual in the following groups are equal in amount, duration, and scope for all beneficiaries within the group: ( 1 ) The categorically needy.
( 2 ) A covered medically needy group.
[46 FR 47993, Sept. 30, 1981]
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Monroe ANDERSON, Charles Joseph Busby, Billy Wayne Dale and George Stuart, Appellees.

No. 81-274.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellees.

*1361PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order of January 28, 1981, nunc pro tunc January 26,1981, which declared Section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979), to be unconstitutional and, thereupon, dismissed the information, is reversed upon the authority of *State v. Benitez,*395 So.2d 514 (Fla.1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BERANEK, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
§ 423.502 Application requirements. ( a ) *Scope.* This section sets forth application requirements for an entity that seeks a determination from CMS that it is qualified to contract as a sponsor of a Part D plan.
( b ) *Completion of a notice of intent to apply.* ( 1 ) An organization submitting an application under this section for a particular contract year must first submit a completed Notice of Intent to Apply by the date established by CMS. CMS will not accept applications from organizations that do not submit a timely Notice of Intent to Apply.
( 2 ) Submitting a Notice of Intent to Apply does not bind that organization to submit an application for the applicable contract year.
( 3 ) An organization's decision not to submit an application after submitting an Notice of Intent to Apply will not form the basis of any action taken against the organization by CMS.
( c ) *Completion of an application.* ( 1 ) In order to obtain a determination on whether it meets the requirements to become a Part D plan sponsor, an entity, or an individual authorized to act for the entity (the applicant), must fully complete all parts of a certified application in the form and manner required by CMS, including the following: ( i ) Documentation of appropriate State licensure or State certification that the entity is able to offer health insurance or health benefits coverage that meets State-specified standards as specified in subpart I of this part; or
( ii ) A Federal waiver as specified in subpart I of this part.
( 2 ) The authorized individual must describe thoroughly how the entity is qualified to meet the all requirements described in this part.
( d ) *Responsibility for making determinations.* ( 1 ) CMS is responsible for determining whether an entity is qualified to contract as a Part D plan sponsor and meets the requirements of this part.
( 2 ) A CMS determination that an entity is qualified to act as a Part D plan sponsor is distinct from the bid negotiations that occur under subpart F of part 423 and such negotiations are not subject to the appeals provisions included in subpart N of this part.
( e ) *Disclosure of application information under the Freedom of Information Act.* An applicant submitting material that he or she believes is protected from disclosure under 5 USC 552, the Freedom of Information Act, or because of exemptions provided in 45 CFR part 5 (the Department's regulations providing exemptions to disclosure), must label the material “privileged” and include an explanation of the applicability of an exemption specified in 45 CFR part 5.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 75 FR 19819, Apr. 15, 2010]
Exhibit 10(i)(i)


 


EXERCISE OF OPTION TO EXTEND AND


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


CHARTER PARTY


(THE “CHARTERPARTY”)


DATED OCTOBER 6, 2005


BETWEEN


ANIA AFRAMAX CORPORATION (THE “OWNERS”)


AND


DHT ANIA AFRAMAX CORP. (THE “CHARTERERS”)


FOR THE VESSEL


OVERSEAS ANIA


 


Pursuant to clause 99 of the Charterparty, the Charterers hereby
declare, as of November 26, 2008, the exercise of the first 18 months of
the option period which shall commence on October 17, 2010 at 0001 hours
GMT and end on April 16, 2012 at 2400 hours GMT (the “Option
Period”).


 


For that portion of the Option Period commencing on October 17,
2010 at 0001 hours GMT and ending on October 16, 2011 at 2400 hours GMT,
the rate shall be usd 19,400 per day.


 


For that portion of the Option Period commencing on October 17,
2011 at 0001 hours GMT and ending on April 16, 2012 at 2400 hours GMT, the
rate shall be usd 19,700 per day.


 


As of the date of this agreement, the Owners and the Charterers hereby
amend the terms of the Charterparty as follows:


 


(1) Notwithstanding clause 99, for the balance of the period
subject to options,  the Charterers are
hereby granted the option to select periods equal to: (a)  12 months, 24
months or 36 months; or (b) on one occasion only,  a single period equal to 6 months, 18 months,
30 months or 42 months.


 


(2) Except as expressly 
amended by this agreement, including the declaration of the Option
Period by the Charterers and its acceptance by the Owners, the terms and
conditions of the Charterparty remain unchanged and in full force and effect
including, without limitation,  the
profit sharing arrangement between the Owners and the Charterers.


 


January 15, 2009


 


 


	
  For Ania
  Aframax Corporation 

  	
   

  	
  For DHT Ania
  Aframax Corp.

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Ole Jacob
  Diesen

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/Mats
  Berglund

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Ole Jacob
  Diesen

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Mats
  Berglund

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice
  President

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.814 Pilot planning document. ( a ) *Plan approval.* For each MEQC pilot, the State must submit a MEQC pilot planning document that meets the requirements of this section to CMS for approval by the first November 1 following the end of the State's PERM year. The State must receive approval for a plan before the plan can be implemented.
( b ) *Plan requirements.* The State must have an approved pilot planning document in effect for each MEQC pilot that must be in accordance with instructions established by CMS and that includes, at a minimum, the following for— ( 1 ) *Active case reviews.* ( i ) Focus of the active case reviews in accordance with § 431.812(b)(3) and justification for focus.
( ii ) Universe development process.
( iii ) Sample size per program.
( iv ) Sample selection procedure.
( v ) Case review process.
( 2 ) *Negative case reviews.* ( i ) Universe development process.
( ii ) Sample size per program.
( iii ) Sample selection procedure.
( iv ) Case review process.
[82 FR 31183, July 5, 2017]
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.1010 Purchase of family coverage. A State may purchase family coverage that includes coverage for targeted low-income children if the State establishes that— ( a ) Purchase of family coverage is cost-effective under the standards described in § 457.1015;
( b ) The State does not purchase the coverage if it would otherwise substitute for health insurance coverage that would be provided to targeted, low-income children but for the purchase of family coverage; and
( c ) The coverage for the family otherwise meets the requirements of this part.
[Cite as Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56.] 

ROBERTS, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56.] 

Habeas corpus—Sentencing error not cognizable in habeas corpus—Claim 

already raised in direct appeal—Res judicata bars second raising of 

claim—Judgment dismissing petition affirmed.

(No. 2011-1364—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 12, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3235. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellant, Michael Roberts, for a writ of habeas corpus. Roberts’s 

claim of sentencing error is not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an 

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise the issue. Turner v. 

Brunsman, 123 Ohio St.3d 445, 2009-Ohio-5588, 917 N.E.2d 269. Roberts has 

already unsuccessfully raised his claim that the trial court erred in sentencing him 

without ordering a presentence-investigation report in a motion to vacate his 

sentence and in an appeal from the court’s denial of his motion. See State v. 

Roberts, Franklin App. No. 10AP-223, 2010-Ohio-4324, 2010 WL 3554309. Res 

judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate 

review. Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079, 914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2. 

We further deny Roberts’s motions for correction or modification of the record 

and to take judicial notice. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

 Michael Roberts, pro se. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

______________________
#### § 456.22 Sample basis evaluation of services.

To promote the most effective and appropriate use of available services and facilities the Medicaid agency must have procedures for the on-going evaluation, on a sample basis, of the need for and the quality and timeliness of Medicaid services.