alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 480.138 Disclosure for other specified purposes. ( a ) *General requirements for disclosure.* Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the following provisions are required of the QIO. ( 1 ) *Disclosure to licensing and certification bodies.* ( i ) A QIO must disclose confidential information upon request, to State or Federal licensing bodies responsible for the professional licensure of a practitioner or a particular institution. Confidential information, including QIO medical necessity determinations that display the practice or performance patterns of that practitioner, must be disclosed by the QIO but only to the extent that it is required by the agency to carry out a function within the jurisdiction of the agency under Federal or State law.
( ii ) A QIO may provide the information specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section to the State or Federal licensing body without request.
( 2 ) *Disclosure to State and local public health officials.* A QIO must disclose QIO information to State and local public health officials whenever the QIO determines that the disclosure of the information is necessary to protect against a substantial risk to the public health.
( 3 ) *Disclosure to the courts.* Patient identified records in the possession of a QIO are not subject to subpoena or discovery in a civil action, including an administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding.
( b ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) The restriction set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section does not apply to HHS, including Inspector General, administrative subpoenas issued in the course of audits and investigations of Department programs, in the course of administrative hearings held under the Social Security Act or to disclosures to the General Accounting Office as necessary to carry out its statutory responsibilities.
( 2 ) A QIO must disclose information regarding QIO deliberations and quality review study information only as specified in §§ 480.139(a) and 480.140.
[50 FR 15359, Apr. 17, 1985; 50 FR 41887, Oct. 16, 1985. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 49267, Aug. 11, 2004]
HomeAssisted Schools...Accra, Ghana: Lincoln Community School Accra: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Accra, Ghana: Lincoln Community School Accra: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

March 1, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +233-302-21-81-00 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: headofschool@lincoln.edu.gh | Website: www.lincoln.edu.gh| Special needs information can be found at www.lincoln.edu.gh/support-services/learning-support. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Accra 2024- Special Needs- Ghana) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

 

The **Lincoln Community School**(LCS) is a private, nonprofit, college preparatory day school that offers educational programs from prekindergarten (age four) through grade 12. The school, established in 1968, is located in the West African city of Accra. The school is a center of excellence in the region, with strong professional development programs for its teachers and serving as a regional site for teacher workshops. The school year comprises four academic quarters, with the first beginning mid-August and the last ending in mid-June. LCS is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and the Council of International Schools and is an authorized International Baccalaureate World School.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

 

Tags

GhanaOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
#### LEO CAHN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LEON E. ALLEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 2, 1939

Decided August 14, 1939.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Donges and Porter.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *Edwin P. Longstreet.*

For the defendant-respondent, *Lloyd O. Riddle.*

Brogan, Chief Justice.

The order under appeal was made in the Common Pleas Court of Monmouth County. The-question that strikes us is whether the order may be reviewed by appeal.

Antecedent to the matter now before us, the plaintiff, Cahn, recovered a judgment against the defendant in the Pleas for $962.97. Thereafter an order was made requiring the judgment debtor, who received a salary of $40 weekly, to pay $4 each week in partial satisfaction of the judgment. This the judgment debtor failed to do and proceedings were had to-have him adjudged in contempt of the court’s order. The judgment debtor countered with a motion to dismiss the order providing for payments out of income as being against public policy since the salary in question was received by Allen for his services as clerk in the United States Post Office at Manasquan, New Jersey. The court, after argument, concluded that he erred in making the first order and he thereupon set it aside on the ground of public policy, and the plaintiff, judgment creditor, appeals. But this is not a matter *127which may be appealed. Only a final judgment at law is appealable or that which is tantamount thereto. *Cf. Knight v. Cape May Sand Co.,*83 *N. J. L.*597. Here it is not a judgment that is sought to be reviewed but subsequent proceedings thereon and *certiorari*is the only method to be employed. *Krumeick*v. *Krumeick,*14 *Id.*39, 42; *Oetjen v. Hintemann,*91 *Id.*429, 432. Execution or satisfaction is no part of the judgment. It is rather an entirely subsequent proceeding in the cause and may be reviewed only by *certiorari.*

The appeal is therefore dismissed, without costs and without prejudice, so that the aggrieved party may, if he so desires, make application for *certiorari.*
§ 137.121 What funds may be included in a stable base budget amount? The stable base budget amount may include, at the option of the Self-Governance Tribe, ( a ) Recurring funds available under section 106(a) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450j-1] ;
( b ) Recurring Tribal shares; and
( c ) Any recurring funds for new or expanded PSFAs not previously assumed by the Self-Governance Tribe.
|   | (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/ Paul              Mann |
|         | Paul                Mann                                                                                                       |
|         | President              and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal                Financial Officer) |
|         | October                18, 2006                                                                                           |

----
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.45 Basis for conditional Medicare payment in workers' compensation cases. ( a ) A conditional Medicare payment may be made under either of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The beneficiary has filed a proper claim for workers' compensation benefits, but the intermediary or carrier determines that the workers' compensation carrier will not pay promptly. This includes cases in which a workers' compensation carrier has denied a claim.
( 2 ) The beneficiary, because of physical or mental incapacity, failed to file a proper claim.
( b ) Any conditional payment that CMS makes is conditioned on reimbursement to CMS in accordance with subpart B of this part.
[71 FR 9470, Feb. 24, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 9685, Feb. 22, 2008]
No. 74-6311.

#### Vargas *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 510 F. 2d 1406.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elmore WILLIAMS.

No. 81-K-0892.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1981.

In re Elmore Williams, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 280-918.

Writ granted. The trial court’s ruling granting the state’s motion to sever is reversed and set aside. (See, *State v. Jones,*396 So.2d 1272 (La.1981); and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4668645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   269543
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4938188
<PP&E>                                        45258516
<DEPRECIATION>                                13487845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                42066979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           564583
<BONDS>                                       10699799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    30802597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  42066979
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9322373
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1921388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1515248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6913526
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6913526
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6913526
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    75.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    75.97
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005217EN.01002901.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others

(Case C-270/05)

(2005/C 217/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 9 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. and L. Panagiotidis and Others on the following question:

Does the operating unit whose staff were made collectively redundant by the employer in derogation from the procedures for informing and consulting with the workers' representatives which are envisaged in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 75/129, Article 2(4) of Directive 92/56 and Article 4(4) of Directive 98/59 fall within the meaning of the Community term ‘establishment’, for the purpose of applying the Council directives referred to in the grounds of this decision and Law 1387/1983 concerning ‘control of collective redundancies and other provisions’?

---
#### Lenson A. HARGRAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellees.

No. 59731.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 2, 1981.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Seherker, Karen M. Gottlieb, Beth C. Weitzner and Robert R. Schrank, Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosen-blatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Lenson A. Hargrave brings this appeal to review the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant was sentenced to death for first-degree murder on July 18, 1975. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. *Hargrave v. State,*366 So.2d 1 (Fla.1978), *cert. denied,*444 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 239, 62 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979).

Hargrave filed his 3.850 motion to vacate and a motion for stay of execution on September 19, 1980. The trial court denied both motions *ore tenus*on September 26, 1980, followed by a written order filed on October 10, 1980. The 3.850 motion asserts a multitude of grounds for relief, from constitutional and non-constitutional error in the guilt phase of the trial to alleged fundamental defects in the sentencing process.* The trial court found, and we so hold, that the issues raised by appellant either were or could have been raised on direct appeal, or they involve changes in decisional law not *1128cognizable in a 3.850 motion. *See Adams v. State,*380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); *Sullivan v. State,*372 So.2d 938 (Fla.1979); *Spenkelink v. State,*350 So.2d 85 (Fla.), *cert, denied,*434 U.S. 960, 98 S.Ct. 492, 54 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977); *State v. Matera,*266 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1972); *Witt v. State,*387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980), *cert.*denied, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying 3.850 relief is affirmed, and the motion for stay of execution pending disposition of this appeal is denied.

SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

*

 On September 23, 1980, Hargrave brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to to counsel’s failure to raise two *1128issues on direct appeal. We denied the petition on September 24, 1980. *Hargrave v. Wainwright,*388 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1980).
#### § 436.200 Scope.

This subpart specifies options for coverage of individuals as categorically needy.
§ 425.808 Effect of independent CMS official's decision. ( a ) The decision of the independent CMS official is final and binding.
( b ) The reconsideration review process under this subpart must not be construed to negate, diminish, or otherwise alter the applicability of existing laws, rules, and regulations or determinations made by other government agencies.
October 3, 2016

Mr. Jeffrey Antonelli

Antonelli Law

Counsel to SkyFly Cinema, LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1875

Chicago, IL 60601

Re: FAA–2015–7598

Dear Mr. Antonelli:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst
HomeNewsroom

# Newsroom

## From the Press Office

**Press Releases**Statements, media notes, notices to the press, and fact sheets

**Department Press Briefings**Collection of press briefing transcripts

**Submit a Media Query**For journalists related to U.S. foreign policy

**From the Secretary**Speeches, other remarks, press statements and Op-Eds

**Public Schedules**Collection of U.S. Department of State public schedules

**Briefing Schedule**Briefings happening today

## Department Resources

General Inquiries **&** Public Comments Find information on common topics or contact us regarding your question.

**Information for Journalists**Submit queries, find the Press Office hours of operation, request interviews, etc.

Department Reports & PublicationsFind the Department’s annual reports and other major publications.

Speaker RequestsHave a State Department Official speak at your event.

State Department HistoryContact the Office of the Historian for inquiries about the Department’s history.

USAID Press ReleasesFind news and information from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

## Follow Us

TwitterInstagramFacebookYouTubeFlickr

TwitterInstagram

TwitterInstagram

Explore our social media presence around the world

Back to Top
§ 435.234 Individuals receiving only optional State supplements in States using more restrictive eligibility requirements than SSI and certain States using SSI criteria. ( a ) In States using more restrictive eligibility requirements than SSI or in States that use SSI criteria but do not have section 1616 or 1634 agreements with the Social Security Administration for eligibility determinations, the agency may provide Medicaid to individuals specified in paragraph (b) of this section who receive only a State supplement if the State supplement meets the conditions specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) The agency may provide Medicaid to all individuals receiving only State supplements if, except for their income, the individuals meet the more restrictive eligibility requirements under § 435.121 or SSI criteria, or to one or more of the following classifications of individuals who meet these criteria: ( 1 ) All aged individuals.
( 2 ) All blind individuals.
( 3 ) All disabled individuals.
( 4 ) Only aged individuals in domiciliary facilities or other group living arrangements as defined under SSI.
( 5 ) Only blind individuals in domiciliary facilities or other group living arrangements as defined under SSI.
( 6 ) Only disabled individuals in domiciliary facilities or other group living arrangements as defined under SSI.
( 7 ) Individuals receiving a Federally-administered optional State supplement that meets the conditions specified in this section.
( 8 ) Individuals in additional classifications specified by the Secretary.
( 9 ) Reasonable groups of individuals, as specified by the State, receiving State-administered supplementary payments.
( c ) Payments under the optional supplement program must be: ( 1 ) Based on need and paid in cash on a regular basis;
( 2 ) Equal to the difference between the individual's countable income and the income standard used to determine eligibility for supplements. Countable income is income remaining after deductions are applied. The income deductions may be more restrictive than required under SSI (see § 435.1006 for limitations on FFP in Medicaid expenditures for individuals receiving optional State supplements); and
( 3 ) Available to all individuals in each classification in paragraph (b) of this section and available on a statewide basis. However, the plan may provide for variations in the income standard by political subdivision according to cost-of-living differences.
[58 FR 4928, Jan. 19, 1993]
### PeneWorx LLC. Dean K. Penewit **1/9/2015** Petition For Exemption to Title 14 CFR

5108 Elton Ct. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Phone: 937
- 387
- 8119
**To Whom It May Concern,** 

### I am requesting an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Our DJI Insp ire 1 and SenseFly

Exom will be used in various commercial applications as lis ted below, our education program will utilize a indoor and outdoor flying range using DJI Phantom II UAS. If able to obtain an exemption our company for hire will provide quality su pport, services and instruction to enhance business, government and consumer experience through the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) quadcopters. Our services will benefit the public as a whole through: ● 

### Education Classes ● Agriculture Planning and Evaluation ● 

### Local Government Planning and Infrastructure Inspection ● 

### Aerial Consumer Video and Photograph y Services ● 

### Live Event or News Streaming ● 

### Immediate Disaster Response I believe that our education in UAS laws and flight training will ultimately

benefit the public interest in educating them about the laws and safet y regulations that the FAA put into place. Our services and support would be safel y conducted with two person integrit y b y a separate observer and adequate training/experience through related operator courses that our compan y will provide. The safety plan will completed upon every

flight with pre flight check list and each UAS will be identified by serial number, r egistered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N −Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Through our education program the recreational UAS market would gain a unique and fun experience with instruction on pi loting a UAS.**[Pick the date]**

Page 2 Respectfully,

**Dean Penewit**