alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 423.566 Coverage determinations. ( a ) *Responsibilities of the Part D plan sponsor.* Each Part D plan sponsor must have a procedure for making timely coverage determinations in accordance with the requirements of this subpart regarding the prescription drug benefits an enrollee is entitled to receive under the plan, including basic prescription drug coverage as specified in § 423.100 and supplemental benefits as specified in § 423.104(f)(1)(ii), and the amount, including cost sharing, if any, that the enrollee is required to pay for a drug. The Part D plan sponsor must have a standard procedure for making determinations, in accordance with § 423.568, and an expedited procedure for situations in which applying the standard procedure may seriously jeopardize the enrollee's life, health, or ability to regain maximum function, in accordance with § 423.570.
( b ) *Actions that are coverage determinations.* The following actions by a Part D plan sponsor are coverage determinations: ( 1 ) A decision not to provide or pay for a Part D drug (including a decision not to pay because the drug is not on the plan's formulary, because the drug is determined not to be medically necessary, because the drug is furnished by an out-of-network pharmacy, or because the Part D plan sponsor determines that the drug is otherwise excludable under section 1862(a) of the Act if applied to Medicare Part D) that the enrollee believes may be covered by the plan;
( 2 ) Failure to provide a coverage determination in a timely manner, when a delay would adversely affect the health of the enrollee;
( 3 ) A decision concerning an exceptions request under § 423.578(a);
( 4 ) A decision concerning an exceptions request under § 423.578(b); or
( 5 ) A decision on the amount of cost sharing for a drug.
( c ) Who can request a coverage determination. Individuals who can request a standard or expedited coverage determination are— ( 1 ) The enrollee;
( 2 ) The enrollee's representative, on behalf of the enrollee; or
( 3 ) The prescribing physician or other prescriber, on behalf of the enrollee.
( d ) *Who must review coverage determinations.* If the Part D plan sponsor expects to issue a partially or fully adverse medical necessity (or any substantively equivalent term used to describe the concept of medical necessity) decision based on the initial review of the request, the coverage determination must be reviewed by a physician or other appropriate health care professional with sufficient medical and other expertise, including knowledge of Medicare coverage criteria, before the Part D plan sponsor issues the coverage determination decision. The physician or other health care professional must have a current and unrestricted license to practice within the scope of his or her profession in a State, Territory, Commonwealth of the United States (that is, Puerto Rico), or the District of Columbia.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 1546, Jan. 12, 2009; 76 FR 21576, Apr. 15, 2011; 86 FR 6119, Jan. 19, 2021]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(File Numbers 33-20181, 33-35182, 2-90595, 33-23899, 33-58305, 33-44477,
33-65024, 33-65177, 333-10419, 333-28257, 333-42469, 33-45822, 33-63297 and
333-49229 on Form S-8 and File Number 33-43574 on Form S-3) of Chiron
Corporation of our report dated January 29, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Chiron Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000
and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2000 and the related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Chiron
Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 2, 2001
Home2024 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Jacobson, Tracey Ann – Republic of Iraq – January 2024

# 									Jacobson, Tracey Ann – Republic of Iraq – January 2024							

Certificate of Competency

January 30, 2024

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                         Republic of Iraq

CANDIDATE:             Tracey Ann Jacobson

Tracey Jacobson, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, currently serves as a Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. She recently served as Charge d’Affaires a.i. at the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  Over the course of her distinguished career, she has served as U.S. Ambassador on three occasions – to Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kosovo, and as Deputy Ambassador at the U.S. Embassy, Riga, Latvia.  In addition to her senior leadership roles overseas, Ambassador Jacobson has served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (and acting Assistant Secretary for an extended period) in the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs.  She also helped to shape the future of the Foreign Service first as Dean of the School of Professional and Area Studies and then as Deputy Director of the National Foreign Affairs Training Center.

Among Ambassador Jacobson’s other roles, she has served as Deputy Executive Secretary and Senior Director for Administration for the National Security Council, Washington DC and as Management Counselor of the U.S. Embassy, Nassau, Bahamas.  Her extensive and broad ranging experience in some of the State Department’s most challenging posts, coupled with her demonstrated success as a leader and policy maker, make her well-qualified to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq.

Ambassador Jacobson earned her B.A. degree from Johns Hopkins University and her M.A. degree from the School of Advanced International Studies, also at Johns Hopkins.  She is the recipient of multiple awards from the State Department, two Presidential Rank Awards, and the Order for Peace, Democracy and Humanism “Ibrahim Rugova” (Kosovo).

Back to Top
§ 456.650 Basis, purpose and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* Section 1903(g) of the Act requires that FFP for long-stay inpatient services at a level of care be reduced, by a specified formula, for any quarter in which a State fails to make a satisfactory showing that it has an effective program of utilization control for that level of care.
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart specifies— ( 1 ) What States must do to make a satisfactory showing;
( 2 ) How the Administrator will determine whether reductions will be imposed; and
( 3 ) How the required reductions will be implemented.
( c ) *Scope.* The reductions required by this subpart do not apply to— ( 1 ) Services provided under a contract with a health maintenance organization; or
( 2 ) Facilities in which a QIO is performing medical and utilization reviews under contract with the Medicaid agency in accordance with § 431.630 of this chapter.
[44 FR 56338, Oct. 1, 1979, as amended at 50 FR 15327, Apr. 17, 1985; 51 FR 43198, Dec. 1, 1986]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1618

FREDDIE N. RAYNOR,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BOB ROLLINS (Wake County); FRED WURTERS; MONA BHATTI; 

DOROTHEA DIX HOSPITAL,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:09-cv-00296-D)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie N. Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert O. Crawford, III, 

CRAWFORD LAW OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Lisa Granberry 

Corbett, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie N. Raynor appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On 

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Raynor’s 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Raynor has forfeited appellate review of 

the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Raynor’s motion for a 

stay and for appointment of counsel, and we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2005310EN.01001601.xml

| 8.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3983 — Polestar/Prisa/Ibersuizas/Iberian Capital/Dedalo)

(2005/C 310/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 November 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3983. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3983. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2006022EN.01001501.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/15

---

Action brought on 2 November 2005 — T v Commission

(Case T-400/05)

(2006/C 22/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: T (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, as far as necessary, the decision of 20 July 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints lodged on 10 February 2005 and 21 March 2005 against the Commission's decision concerning the loss of her days of leave for 2004 and against the Commission's decision to consider the applicant's absences from 15 November 2004 to be improper; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, as far as necessary, the decision of 20 July 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints lodged on 10 February 2005 and 21 March 2005 against the Commission's decision concerning the loss of her days of leave for 2004 and against the Commission's decision to consider the applicant's absences from 15 November 2004 to be improper;

| — | establish the liability of the European Community as a result of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the liability of the European Community as a result of the contested decision;

| — | award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, in an amount of EUR 58 395.39; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, in an amount of EUR 58 395.39;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a former Commission official, in retirement since 1 September 2005. By her action, she contests the defendant's decision to consider some of her absences in 2004 to be improper and to be set against her annual leave entitlement and her remuneration. In support of her action she alleges infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations in so far as she has medical certificates for the periods of absence at issue. In addition, she alleges infringement of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V thereto concerning annual leave, a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.

The applicant also claims that she should be compensated for both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss that she allegedly incurred as a result of the defendant's actions.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate and real
estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance
sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying
unaudited financial statements.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,834,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  853,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,477,500<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,625,872<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,477,500<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,753,373<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,142,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                611,050
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            611,050
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   611,050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.93<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in real estate of $30,169,198, investments in joint venture of $8,378,496 and
net deferred leasing commissions of $241,345.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $683,861,
and other liabilities of $167,767.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $1,589,557, equity in earnings of joint
venture of $143,620, and interest and other revenue of $20,196.
<F5>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Nancy Bigger, wife of/and Gene R. ALLIGOOD, et al. v. Lynne Cappel, wife of/and Samuel M. CASHIO, Jr.

No. 10457.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1979.

*CMXLVIIISteven K. Faulkner, Jr., Morphy, Faulkner, Simpson & DiMaria, Metairie, for plaintiffs.

S. Michael Cashio, Kenner, for self and Lynne Cappel Cashio.

Daniel A. Post, Post, Reinhardt & Rouge-lot, Metairie, for intervenor Gertrude Gardner, Inc.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOU-TALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

After agreeing to sell their home by allowing the purchasers to assume the existing mortgage, defendant vendors refused to sign the notarial act of sale with assumption which the mortgagee’s notary prepared and which recited that vendors (as well as purchasers) agreed that the mortgage interest rate should be increased by one half percent. The purchasers and their real estate agent and the vendors’ real estate agent now appeal from the dismissal of their demands against the vendors. We affirm.

Appellants argue that defendants merely use the interest rate increase as an excuse for breaching the contract, and that the lender would have agreed to not hold the vendors liable for the extra half percent interest in the unlikely event of vendors’ being called upon because of a default by purchasers. But appellants do not show that the lender offered for signing an act of sale which did not place upon the vendors the extra interest obligation. If it be true that that obligation was not the real cause of vendors’ refusal to sign, the legal issue is unchanged: Do prospective vendors breach their obligation to sell property with an assumption of mortgage by refusing to sign a notarial act which not only retains vendors’ liability on the mortgage but increases it by raising the interest rate? The answer is no. Vendors are not obliged to undertake any other obligation, howsoever contingent and remote, as part of their performance of an agreement to sell with assumption of existing mortgage. Neither purchasers nor lender can exact from vendors any performance beyond that promised by the buy-sell agreement.

Affirmed.
§ 447.250 Basis and purpose. ( a ) This subpart implements section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the Act, which requires that the State plan provide for payment for hospital and long-term care facility services through the use of rates that the State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs that must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities to provide services in conformity with State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards.
( b ) Section 447.253(a)(2) implements section 1902(a)(30) of the Act, which requires that payments be consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care;
( c ) Sections 447.253 (c) and (d) implement sections 1902(a)(13)(B) and 1902(a)(13)(C) of the Act, which require a State Medicaid agency to make certain assurances to the Secretary regarding increases in payments resulting solely from changes in ownerships of hospitals, NFs, and ICFs/IID.
( d ) Section 447.271 implements section 1903(i)(3) of the Act, which requires that payments for inpatient hospital services not exceed the hospital's customary charges.
( e ) Section 447.280 implements section 1913(b) of the Act, which concerns reimbursement for long-term care services furnished by swing-bed hospitals.
[48 FR 56057, Dec. 19, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 43921, Sept. 23, 1992]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0478 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSIAH BRACKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 1 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 23 2023

01/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0478
§ 405.1034 Requesting information from the QIC. ( a ) If an ALJ or attorney adjudicator believes that the written record is missing information that is essential to resolving the issues on appeal and that information can be provided only by CMS or its contractors, the information may be requested from the QIC that conducted the reconsideration or its successor. ( 1 ) Official copies of redeterminations and reconsiderations that were conducted on the appealed claims, and official copies of dismissals of a request for redetermination or reconsideration, can be provided only by CMS or its contractors. Prior to issuing a request for information to the QIC, OMHA will confirm whether an electronic copy of the redetermination, reconsideration, or dismissal is available in the official system of record, and if so will accept the electronic copy as an official copy.
( 2 ) “Can be provided only by CMS or its contractors” means the information is not publicly available, is not in the possession of, and cannot be requested and obtained by one of the parties. Information that is publicly available is information that is available to the general public via the Internet or in a printed publication. Information that is publicly available includes, but is not limited to, information available on a CMS or contractor Web site or information in an official CMS or DHHS publication (including, but not limited to, provisions of NCDs or LCDs, procedure code or modifier descriptions, fee schedule data, and contractor operating manual instructions).
( b ) The ALJ or attorney adjudicator retains jurisdiction of the case, and the case remains pending at OMHA.
( c ) The QIC has 15 calendar days after receiving the request for information to furnish the information or otherwise respond to the information request directly or through CMS or another contractor.
( d ) If an adjudication period applies to the appeal in accordance with § 405.1016, the adjudication period is extended by the period between the date of the request for information and the date the QIC responds to the request or 20 calendar days after the date of the request, whichever occurs first.
[82 FR 5117, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 19870, May 7, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         821,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,628,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,950,528
<PP&E>                                         690,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                 593,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,306,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,590,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,235,674
<COMMON>                                        74,950
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,017,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,306,450
<SALES>                                      3,253,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,253,696
<CGS>                                        2,158,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,720,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,918)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                525,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                   215,290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            309,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   309,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>