alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3021

To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and other

Federal funds in obligations of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1996

Mr. ARCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and other Federal funds in obligations of the United

States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF

4 THE UNITED STATES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any other authority

6 provided by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue

7 to each Federal fund obligations of the United States

8 under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, before

9 March 30, 1996, in an amount not to exceed the sum of—
2

•HR 3021 IH

1 (1) the amounts deposited in such fund after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act and before

3 March 30, 1996, and

4 (2) the face amount of obligations held by such

5 fund which mature during such period.

6 (b) OBLIGATIONS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DEBT

7 LIMIT.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Obligations issued under

9 subsection (a) shall not be taken into account in ap10 plying the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31,

11 United States Code.

12 (2) TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.—Paragraph

13 (1) shall cease to apply on the earlier of—

14 (A) the date of the enactment of the first

15 increase in the limitation in section 3101(b) of

16 title 31, United States Code, after the date of

17 the enactment of this Act, or

18 (B) March 30, 1996.

19 (c) FEDERAL FUND.—For purposes of this section,

20 the term ‘‘Federal fund’’ means any Federal trust fund

21 or Government account established pursuant to Federal

22 law to which the Secretary of the Treasury has issued or

23 is expressly authorized by law directly to issue obligations

24 under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, in re-
3

•HR 3021 IH

1 spect of public money, money otherwise required to be de2 posited in the Treasury, or amounts appropriated.

3 (d) EXTENSION OF EXISTING AUTHORITY.—Sub4 paragraph (B) of section 1(c)(2) of Public Law 104–103

5 is amended by striking ‘‘March 15, 1996’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘March 30, 1996’’.

Æ
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...International Travel Recommendations

# 									International Travel Recommendations							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 26, 2022

U.S. citizens considering international travel should plan ahead and be informed about travel requirements before making decisions or firm travel plans.  We urge U.S. citizens considering international travel to check their passport expiration date early and if renewal is needed, to submit applications as far ahead of their travel dates as possible.  Travelers should check the Passports section of travel.state.gov for the latest information about applying for a passport, including application procedures, processing times, and fees.  Travelers should also research potential international travel destinations on the International Travel section of travel.state.gov and review the current Travel Advisory and Country Information Page for each country.  Keep in mind that many countries require six months’ passport validity for entry.

The U.S. Department of State is committed to meeting the needs of U.S. travelers.  The current processing time for routine passport service is 8-11 weeks and for expedited service is 5-7 weeks.  These processing times do not factor in mailing times to and from our offices. They begin the day we receive an application at a passport agency (not the day a customer applies for a passport at an acceptance facility or drops an application off in the mail), and they end the day we issue the passport.

Adults with valid passports expiring within one year should renew by mail.  Applicants with urgent travel within five days can make an appointment at one of our 26 regional passport agencies.  Applicants with life and death emergencies can make an appointment within three days of travel.  All such applicants must call 877-487-2778 to make an appointment and will be required to provide proof of travel and proof of the life-or-death emergency at the time they apply.

Applicants may schedule an appointment to apply for a passport if they are traveling within two weeks or need a foreign visa within four weeks; however, the appointment cannot occur more than five business days before the date of travel, or ten business days if a visa is required.

We continue to advise travelers to consider COVID-19 conditions and restrictions at their destinations, in addition to other safety and security factors, when considering international travel.  Our embassies and consulates around the world will continue to provide the latest country-specific COVID-19-related information on their websites.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonTravel

Back to Top
§ 433.55 Health care-related taxes defined. ( a ) A health care-related tax is a licensing fee, assessment, or other mandatory payment that is related to— ( 1 ) Health care items or services;
( 2 ) The provision of, or the authority to provide, the health care items or services; or
( 3 ) The payment for the health care items or services.
( b ) A tax will be considered to be related to health care items or services under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if at least 85 percent of the burden of the tax revenue falls on health care providers.
( c ) A tax is considered to be health care related if the tax is not limited to health care items or services, but the treatment of individuals or entities providing or paying for those health care items or services is different than the tax treatment provided to other individuals or entities.
( d ) A health care-related tax does not include payment of a criminal or civil fine or penalty, unless the fine or penalty was imposed instead of a tax.
( e ) Health care insurance premiums and health maintenance organization premiums paid by an individual or group to ensure coverage or enrollment are not considered to be payments for health care items and services for purposes of determining whether a health care-related tax exists.
§ 440.182 State plan home and community-based services. ( a ) *Definition.* State plan home and community-based services (HCBS) benefit means the services listed in paragraph (c) of this section when provided under the State's plan (rather than through an HCBS waiver program) for individuals described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *State plan HCBS coverage.* State plan HCBS can be made available to individuals who— ( 1 ) Are eligible under the State plan and have income, calculated using the otherwise applicable rules, including any less restrictive income disregards used by the State for that group under section 1902(r)(2) of the Act, that does not exceed 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL); and
( 2 ) In addition to the individuals described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, to individuals based on the State's election of the eligibility groups described in § 435.219(b) or § 436.219(b) of this chapter.
( c ) *Services.* The State plan HCBS benefit consists of one or more of the following services: ( 1 ) Case management services.
( 2 ) Homemaker services.
( 3 ) Home health aide services.
( 4 ) Personal care services.
( 5 ) Adult day health services.
( 6 ) Habilitation services, which include expanded habilitation services as specified in § 440.180(c).
( 7 ) Respite care services.
( 8 ) Subject to the conditions in § 440.180(d)(2), for individuals with chronic mental illness: ( i ) Day treatment or other partial hospitalization services;
( ii ) Psychosocial rehabilitation services;
( iii ) Clinic services (whether or not furnished in a facility).
( 9 ) Other services requested by the agency and approved by the Secretary as consistent with the purpose of the benefit.
( d ) *Exclusion.* FFP is not available for the cost of room and board in State plan HCBS. The following HCBS costs are not considered room or board for purposes of this exclusion: ( 1 ) The cost of temporary food and shelter provided as an integral part of respite care services in a facility approved by the State.
( 2 ) Meals provided as an integral component of a program of adult day health services or another service and consistent with standard procedures in the State for such a program.
( 3 ) A portion of the rent and food costs that may be reasonably attributed to an unrelated caregiver providing State plan HCBS who is residing in the same household with the recipient, but not if the recipient is living in the home of the caregiver or in a residence that is owned or leased by the caregiver.
[79 FR 3029, Jan. 16, 2014]
#### Louis M. CARTER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 51432.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 12, 1979.

Travis Buckley, Laurel, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Carolyn B. Mills, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; George B. Grubbs, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
§ 488.320 Sanctions for inadequate survey performance. ( a ) *Annual assessment of survey performance.* CMS assesses the performance of the State's survey and certification program annually.
( b ) *Sanctions for inadequate survey performance.* When a State demonstrates inadequate survey performance, as specified in § 488.318, CMS notifies the survey agency of the inadequacy and takes action in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
( c ) *Medicaid facilities.* ( 1 ) For a pattern of failure to identify deficiencies in Medicaid facilities, CMS— ( i ) Reduces FFP, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, and if appropriate;
( ii ) Provides for training of survey teams.
( 2 ) For other survey inadequacies in Medicaid facilities, CMS provides for training of survey teams.
( d ) *Medicare facilities.* For all survey inadequacies in Medicare facilities, CMS— ( 1 ) Requires that the State survey agency submit a plan of correction;
( 2 ) Provides for training of survey teams;
( 3 ) Provides technical assistance on scheduling and procedural policies;
( 4 ) Provides CMS-directed scheduling; or
( 5 ) Initiates action to terminate the agreement between the Secretary and the State under section 1864 of the Act, either in whole or in part.
( e ) *Reduction of FFP.* In reducing FFP for inadequate survey performance, CMS uses the formula specified in section 1919(g)(3)(C) of the Act, that is 33 percent multiplied by a fraction— ( 1 ) The numerator of which is equal to the total number of residents in the NFs that CMS found to be noncompliant during validation surveys for that quarter; and
( 2 ) The denominator of which is equal to the total number of residents in the NFs in which CMS conducted validation surveys during that quarter.
( f ) *Appeal of FFP reduction.* When a State is dissatisfied with CMS's determination to reduce FFP, the State may appeal the determination to the Departmental Appeals Board, using the procedures specified in 45 CFR part 16.
#### Michael Devaney et al. *v.*Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven.

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued June 12

decided June 14, 1945.

*219
      *David M. Richman,*for the plaintiffs (appellees).

*Thomas R. FitzSimmons,*with whom was *Harold C. Donegan*for Vito Migliaro (appellant).

Per Curiam.

In the view we take of the principal issue, the result will be the same whether we deny the motion for permission to file a motion to erase or the motion to erase. We choose to deal directly with the motion to erase the appeal.

The action came to the Court of Common Pleas as an appeal by certain property owners from a decision of the board of zoning appeals of New Haven permitting Vito Migliaro to use, for a restaurant, the lower floor of a building in a Residence B district. The court sustained the appeal. Migliaro filed an appeal to this court from that judgment. The plaintiffs seek to have it erased on the ground that he is not a party to the action.

The appeal was brought to the Court of Common Pleas in the approved form for such a proceeding. Practice Book, Form No. 581. It was in the general form of a petition to the court, reciting the names of the appellants, and stating that it was an appeal from the board of zoning appeals; and it then alleged the facts which were the basis of its claims for relief and stated these claims. To it was appended a direction to the sheriff or other proper officer to summon the board and Migliaro to appear before the court on a day certain to answer the appeal. Service in accordance with this direction was made on Migliaro. In a proceeding of this nature, it is the summons attached to the complaint and its service which bring the persons *220named into court as parties defendant to the action. *Leavitt*v. *Leavitt,*135 Mass. 191, 192. Migliaro was a party to the action in the Court of Common Pleas and, therefore, entitled to appeal.

In the interest of proper practice, we add that, as relief granted to the plaintiffs on the appeal would necessarily result in the invalidation of the permission granted to Migliaro to use the premises for a restaurant, he was a necessary, indeed an indispensable, party to it. *Rommell*v. *Walsh,*127 Conn. 16, 23, 15 Atl. (2d) 6; *United States*v. *Allen,*103 C. C. A. 1, 19, 179 Fed. 13; *Cowperthwaite*v. *Wallworth,*105 N. J. Eq. 657, 659, 149 Atl. 353; *Jones*v. *Herbert,*77 N. H. 282, 284, 90 Atl. 854.

The motion to erase is denied.
HomeNATO Status Lists...25. Further Additional Protocol to the Agreement Among the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the Other States Participating in the Partnership for Peace Regarding the Status of Their Forces, done at Brussels December 19, 1997

# 									25. Further Additional Protocol to the Agreement Among the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the Other States Participating in the Partnership for Peace Regarding the Status of Their Forces, done at Brussels December 19, 1997							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force April 15, 1999.

In accordance with Article V, paragraph 2, the Further Additional Protocol shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval and instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Further Additional Protocol shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America. In accordance with Article V, paragraph 3, the Further Additional Protocol entered into force as soon as two or more signatory States had deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval. The Further Additional Protocol enters into force for each other signatory State on the date of the deposit of its instrument.
Download Status List						 [105 KB]

Tags

MultilateralNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationTreaties

Back to Top
Request from Texas Commission on Air Quality

Contribution Data

From: Possiel, Norm

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:51 PM

To: 'Jim Smith' <jim.smith@tceq.texas.gov>

Cc: Shantha Daniel <shantha.daniel@tceq.texas.gov>; Zarena Post <zarena.post@tceq.texas.gov>;

Stephen Davis <stephen.davis@tceq.texas.gov>; Timin, Brian <Timin.Brian@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: CSAPR data files

Jim,

In response to your email below, the dates used in th e calculation of the average contribution metric for

each site can be derived from the data and computer codes that are on the air quality modeling data

drives which are in the docket fo r this proposed rule (docket ID EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2015

‐ 0500

‐ 0100).

However, in the interest of transparency and respon siveness, we are providing the attached additional

excel file which contains data that can also be used to identify the dates in the contribution

calculations. Specifically, the attached file c ontains the 2017 model-predicted maximum daily 8-hour

(MDA8) ozone concentrations for all days in the period May 1 through September 30 at each site. The

subset of days that were used in the calculation of the contribution metric can be identified by applying

the date selection criteria to the projected 2017 MDA8 ozone concentrations in the attached file. The date

selection criteria are de scribed in the Air Quality Modeling TSD fo r the proposed rule (docket ID EPA-HQOAR-2015-0500-0075).

The date selection criteria are as follows: we used the data for all days with 2017 MDA8 ozone >= 76 ppb

(i.e., projected 2017 exceedance days in the calculation of the contribution metric. If there were fewer

than five 2017 exceedance days at a particular monito ring site then the data for the top five 2017 MDA8

concentration days were used in the calculations. If there were fewer than five days with a modeled 2017

MDA8 concentration >= 60 ppb for the location of a particular site, then contributions were not calculated

for that monitor. Again, by applyi ng the date selection criteria to the data in the attached file you can

identify the specific dates used in the calc ulation of the average contribution metric.

Norm Possiel

EPA/OAR/OAQPS

(919) 541-5692From: Jim Smith [ mailto:jim.smith@tceq.texas.gov ]

Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 3:29 PM

To: Possiel, Norm < Possiel.Norm@epa.gov >

Cc: Shantha Daniel < shantha.daniel@tceq.texas.gov >; Zarena Post < zarena.post@tceq.texas.gov >;

Stephen Davis < stephen.davis@tceq.texas.gov >

Subject: CSAPR data files

Norm:

As we discussed on the phone, we would like to obtain a copy of the data files that were used to

develop the state contributions in the recent CSAPR modeling for the 2008 ozone standard. In particular

we are interested in knowing which dates were used for each monitor. At this time we are not asking

for the full set of modeling inputs/outputs, etc., although we may at some time in the future. We

greatly appreciate your help us with this request.

Thanks,

Jim Smith & Shantha Daniel

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, Texas

(512) 239

‐ 1941 (Jim)

(512) 239

‐ 3930 (Shantha)
#### In re MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION. UNION TRUST CO. OF MARYLAND v. COMPTON et al.

No. 283.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1935.

Wickes & Neilson, of New York City (Robert H. Neilson and Nathan F. George, *262both of New York City, of counsel), for Manhattan Bank.

Niles, Barton, Morrow & Yost, of Baltimore, Md., and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman & Hays, of New York City (Carlyle Barton and George S. Yost, both of Baltimore, Md., and Jacob Scholer, of New York City, of counsel), for Union Trust Co.

Hays, Wolf, Kaufman & Schwabacher, of New York City, and Emory, Beeuwkes, Skeen & Oppenheimer, of Baltimore, Md. (Ralph Wolf and Edwin D. Hays, both of New York City, and Reuben Oppenheimer, of Baltimore, Md., of counsel), for Compton and others.

Campbell, Harding, Goodwin & Dan-forth, of New York City (William L. Glenn, Ralph M. Ketcham, and Edward N. Goodwin, all of New York City, of counsel), for Bondholders’ Protective Committee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are the same as in Re Central Funding Corporation (C. C. A.) 75 F.(2d) 256, except that long before the proceeding was started the debtor had here conveyed away its interest in the mortgaged property. By these conveyances it had stripped itself of all its property except for a somewhat dubious residue in some bank accounts, amounting at most to a few thousand dollars. We have held that a substantial equity is not necessary to justify the proceeding. We see no reason to stick at a phantom equity whose value is a mere visionary possibility. The debtor is itself made up of its shareholders, considered as a class, and, just as they are bound together by the corporate form, so are the secured creditors by their *common*trust. Indeed, the shareholders, the unsecured creditors, and the secured, are each a separate order in one hierarchy; each has its proper unity; the section is intended as a remedy to allow all or some of these classes to establish a concourse which will avoid that dismemberment of their interests which other remedies occasion. Thus it can 'make no difference that the group of shareholders has been definitely eliminated, either by a legal transaction as here, or by such a collapse in value that there is no reasonable expectation of revival.

Order affirmed.
#### §§ 441.204-441.205 [Reserved]
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics

HomeBureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs...Leadership – Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

# 									Leadership – Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs							

ECA Senior Leadership

Tags

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

Back to Top
#### Ex parte MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. In re Bill HAAS v. MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Alabama State Tenure Commission.

No. 79-358.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 14, 1980.

Ralph H. Ford and John 0. Cates, Huntsville, for petitioners.

Joseph L. Battle, Huntsville, for respondent.

*878FAULKNER, Justice.

Writ denied.

TORBERT, C. J.,. and ALMON, SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-31212

Summary Calendar

LOUIS PILLETTE; BERT GRANT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

M-I, L.L.C., doing business as MI Swaco

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CV-2300

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by that

court. We briefly address the claimed errors raised by the plaintiffs.

There was no abuse of discretion by the court in denying another extension

of time for discovery after the warning given plaintiffs for their lack of diligence

in the court’s prior orders.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 28, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-31212 Document: 00512254727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2013
No. 12-31212

Plaintiffs allege prior incidents they say demonstrated race and age

discrimination, but the only adverse employment action claimed in this lawsuit

is their termination. That came in the reduction of workforce by defendant as

the result of the stop of work due to a hurricane in the Gulf and moratorium on

drilling. Plaintiffs acknowledge the justification for that reduction. Then they

fail to present any evidence that their race or age contributed to their

termination. They declined transfers to other facilities of defendant, and those

employees whom were retained in the skeleton crew included African-Americans

and those more than 40 years old. White and younger people were laid off. No

evidence is given that their age or race affected any job decision about plaintiffs

by defendant, other than their own opinion of their superior work performance.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-31212 Document: 00512254727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2013