alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 423.586 Opportunity to submit evidence.

The Part D plan sponsor must provide the enrollee or the prescribing physician or other prescriber, as appropriate, with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and allegations of fact or law, related to the issue in dispute, in person as well as in writing. In the case of an expedited redetermination, the opportunity to present evidence is limited by the short timeframe for making a decision. Therefore, the Part D plan sponsor must inform the enrollee or the prescribing physician or other prescriber of the conditions for submitting the evidence.

[74 FR 1548, Jan. 12, 2009]
Exhibit 32.1

      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Donita R. Koval, of Omega Financial Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      1.    The Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
            ended  December  31, 2005 (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/ Donita R. Koval
         -------------------
         Chief Executive Officer                      Date: 03/15/2006
                                                            ----------

      The foregoing  certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the  United  States  Code) and is not being  filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.


      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I,  Daniel L.  Warfel,  of Omega  Financial  Corporation,  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      1.    The Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
            ended  December  31, 2005 (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/ Daniel L. Warfel
         --------------------
         Chief Financial Officer                        Date: 03/15/2006
                                                              ----------

      The foregoing  certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the  United  States  Code) and is not being  filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.


                                       52
41147.

#### HACKEL v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

Decided February 11, 1965.

*E. Louis Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Bingel, Martin, Ansley & Carr, Charles L. Drew,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The deputy director hearing the case found that the prior agreements approved by the board were res judicata as to the claimant’s condition as of the time of such agreements. Such holding was in accord with decisions of the Supreme Court and this court that: “By entering into the agreement and allowing it to receive the approval of the board, the parties thereby preclude themselves from thereafter contradicting or challenging the matters thus agreed upon. The only provision of law for further consideration of a case thus disposed of by an approved agreement is a review upon a change in condition, as provided in the Code, § 114-709. The inquiry authorized by law to be made on the review is strictly *191limited to a change in condition. The condition as it existed at the time of the agreement is settled by that agreement, and cannot be redetermined upon the review.” *Lumbermen’s Mutual Cas. Co. v. Cook,*195 Ga. 397, 399 (24 SE2d 309). See also *Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Wilson,*215 Ga. 746, 752 (113 SE2d 611), and cases there cited.

The evidence discloses that prior to the time the second agreement was entered into and approved by the board the claimant underwent additional surgery requiring the removal of a part of the pelvic bone for use as a bone graft to aid the repair of the broken leg and under decisions exemplified by *London Guarantee &c. Co. v. Ritchey,*53 Ga. App. 628 (1) (186 SE 863), and *National Surety Cory. v. Martin,*86 Ga. App. 77 (71 SE2d 666), could have, at that time, authorized an award under *Code Ann.*§ 114-404 (incapacity to labor), rather than under *Code Ann.*§ 114-406 (loss of a specific member), yet where the second agreement was entered into later and there was no evidence of any incapacity because of such surgery of the pelvic bone and no evidence of any change in the condition of the claimant’s leg, except possibly that its condition had improved, the award adverse to the claimant must be affirmed. Accordingly, the superior court did not err in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.1022 Parties to the hearing.

The parties to the hearing are the affected party and CMS, as appropriate.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Counterterrorism Dialogue

# 									Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Counterterrorism Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 26, 2023

The United States and the European Union held their regular Counterterrorism Dialogue in Brussels May 25.

The United States and the European Union discussed their shared priorities in the global fight against terrorism and their assessment of the threat landscape around the world, including in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Africa.  They also shared concerns about ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the threat from ISIS-K in Afghanistan and beyond, the challenges posed by al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups in East Africa, and the continued and expanding threat of terrorist groups in West Africa and the Sahel.

The United States and the EU also discussed how to further improve strong transatlantic counterterrorism cooperation and how to strengthen international and multilateral efforts to address terrorism and to prevent and counter violent extremism, including racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism/violent right-wing extremism.

They further reviewed their cooperation within the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which the EU currently co-chairs, and their engagement in the UN Global CT Strategy Review.

The United States and the EU will hold the next iteration of the Counterterrorism Dialogue in 2024, in Washington D.C.

The Department of State’s acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism Christopher Landberg led the U.S. interagency delegation.  The EU was represented by European External Action Service (EEAS) Deputy Managing Director for Common Security and Defence Policy Joanneke Balfoort, joined by EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Ilkka Salmi and representatives from the European Commission.

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismCounterterrorismEuropean UnionOffice of the SpokespersonThe Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS

Back to Top
§ 476.104 Coordination of activities. In order to achieve efficient and economical review, a QIO must coordinate its activities (including information exchanges) with the activities of— ( a ) Medicare administrative contractors, fiscal intermediaries, and carriers.
( b ) Other QIOs; and
( c ) Other public or private review organizations as may be appropriate.
[50 FR 15330, Apr. 17, 1985, as amended at 77 FR 68561, Nov. 15, 2012]
```

[114th Congress Public Law 212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 827]]

Public Law 114-212
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 5720 South 142nd Street in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Petty Officer 1st 
     Class Caleb A. Nelson Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 29, 
                         2016 -  [H.R. 4975]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS CALEB A. NELSON POST OFFICE 
                              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5720 South 142nd Street in Omaha, Nebraska, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Petty Officer 1st Class Caleb A. Nelson Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Petty 
Officer 1st Class Caleb A. Nelson Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 29, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            May 23, considered and passed House.
            July 14, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0608

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KAYLA DAWN PENNINGTON,

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 September 10, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2021

08/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0608
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harry HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 75-1174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 16, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
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.

§ 457.1210 Enrollment process. ( a ) *Default enrollment process.* ( 1 ) If a state uses a default enrollment process to assign beneficiaries to a MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity, the process must: ( i ) Assign beneficiaries to a qualified MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity. To be qualified, the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity must: ( A ) Not be subject to the intermediate sanction described in § 438.702(a)(4) of this chapter.
( B ) Have capacity to enroll beneficiaries.
( ii ) Maximize continuation of existing provider-beneficiary relationships. An “existing provider-beneficiary relationship” is one in which the provider was the main source of CHIP services for the beneficiary during the previous year. This may be established through State records of previous managed care enrollment or fee-for-service experience, encounter data, or through contact with the beneficiary.
( iii ) If the approach in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section is not possible, the State must distribute the beneficiaries equitably among the MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, PCCMs and PCCM entities. The State may not arbitrarily exclude any MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity from being considered.
( 2 ) The State may consider additional reasonable criteria to conduct the default enrollment process, including the previous plan assignment of the beneficiary, quality assurance and improvement performance, procurement evaluation elements, accessibility of provider offices for people with disabilities (when appropriate), and other reasonable criteria that support the objectives of the managed care program.
( 3 ) The State must send a confirmation of the enrollee's managed care enrollment to the enrollee within 5 calendar days of the date such enrollment is processed by the State. The confirmation must clearly explain the enrollee's right to disenroll within 90 days from the effective date of the enrollment.
( b ) *Priority for enrollment.* The state must have an enrollment system under which beneficiaries already enrolled in an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity are given priority to continue that enrollment if the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity does not have the capacity to accept all those seeking enrollment under the program.
( c ) *Informational notices.* A State must provide an informational notice to each potential enrollee who may enroll in an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity. Such notice must: ( 1 ) Include the MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, PCCMs, or PCCM entities available to the potential enrollee;
( 2 ) Explain how to select an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity;
( 3 ) Explain the implications of making or not making an active choice of an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity;
( 4 ) Explain the length of the enrollment period as well as the disenrollment policies in § 457.1212; and
( 5 ) Comply with the information requirements in § 457.1207 and accessibility standards established under § 457.340.
[81 FR 27897, May 6, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 40, Jan. 3, 2017]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.250 Federal financial participation. FFP is available in expenditures for— ( a ) Payments for services continued pending a hearing decision;
( b ) Payments made— ( 1 ) To carry out hearing decisions; and
( 2 ) For services provided within the scope of the Federal Medicaid program and made under a court order.
( c ) Payments made to take corrective action prior to a hearing;
( d ) Payments made to extend the benefit of a hearing decision or court order to individuals in the same situation as those directly affected by the decision or order;
( e ) Retroactive payments under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section in accordance with applicable Federal policies on corrective payments; and
( f ) Administrative costs incurred by the agency for— ( 1 ) Transportation for the applicant or beneficiary, his representative, and witnesses to and from the hearing;
( 2 ) Meeting other expenses of the applicant or beneficiary in connection with the hearing;
( 3 ) Carrying out the hearing procedures, including expenses of obtaining the additional medical assessment specified in § 431.240 of this subpart; and
( 4 ) Hearing procedures for Medicaid and non-Medicaid individuals appealing transfers, discharges and determinations of preadmission screening and annual resident reviews under part 483, subparts C and E of this chapter.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 24882, Apr. 11, 1980; 57 FR 56506, Nov. 30, 1992]
§ 435.948 Verifying financial information. ( a ) The agency must in accordance with this section request the following information relating to financial eligibility from other agencies in the State and other States and Federal programs to the extent the agency determines such information is useful to verifying the financial eligibility of an individual: ( 1 ) Information related to wages, net earnings from self-employment, unearned income and resources from the State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the agencies administering the State unemployment compensation laws, the State-administered supplementary payment programs under section 1616(a) of the Act, and any State program administered under a plan approved under Titles I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Act; and
( 2 ) Information related to eligibility or enrollment from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Act, and other insurance affordability programs.
( b ) To the extent that the information identified in paragraph (a) of this section is available through the electronic service established in accordance with § 435.949 of this subpart, the agency must obtain the information through such service.
( c ) The agency must request the information by SSN, or if an SSN is not available, using other personally identifying information in the individual's account, if possible.
[77 FR 17211, Mar. 23, 2012]
### Revised CMAS Preamble **Nick Parsons** to: Cortney_Higgins 10/12/2012 04:00 PM Cc: Paul Versace, Penny Lassiter, JohnB Chamberlin Hi Cortney, Attached are our revisions and responses to the latest interagency comments. A clean copy of the preamble is also attached. Thanks, Nick

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012 Clean.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012 Clean.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012.doc
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 Fact Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacqueline Danforth, President and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 14, 2005

By:  /s/ Jacqueline Danforth

Name: Jacqueline Danforth

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Accounting Officer)
#### § 441.201 Definition.

As used in this subpart, “physician” means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is licensed to practice in the State.

[52 FR 47935, Dec. 17, 1987]
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Kaplan, Jonathan Eric – Republic of Singapore – August 2021

# 									Kaplan, Jonathan Eric – Republic of Singapore – August 2021							

Certificate of Competency

June 25, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

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

POST:		Republic of Singapore

CANDIDATE:	Jonathan Eric Kaplan

Jonathan Kaplan is a prominent executive, entrepreneur, and philanthropist whose career has spanned numerous industries. He is the co-founder and current Chairperson of EducationSuperHighway, a nonprofit organization that has garnered bipartisan federal support and built partnerships with governors in all 50 states to bring high-speed internet to 48.6 million children in K-12 classrooms classrooms across the nation. Professionally, Mr. Kaplan is best known for founding Pure Digital Technologies and inventing its revolutionary Flip video camera.  In 2009, Cisco bought Pure Digital Technologies and Mr. Kaplan became Senior Vice President and General Manager of its Consumer Products Division, managing a billion-dollar portfolio with over 1,000 employees in offices worldwide. Mr. Kaplan has traveled to over 75 countries and worked closely with corporate and government officials in China, Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

Mr. Kaplan most recently was the founder and CEO of The Melt, a multi-unit California chain of fast casual restaurants based in San Francisco. Earlier in his career, he was the President and CEO of Sega.com, one of the world’s first online gaming platforms and before that he was the founder and CEO of FamilyWonder, an entertainment and technology company. As a longtime member and former Chapter Chair of the Young President’s Organization (YPO) Mr. Kaplan has been part of a delegation of chief executives that routinely meets with corporate management and government leaders in dozens of countries.  His demonstrated leadership skills, his ability to build effective partnerships throughout government, his considerable experience in international business, and his innovative vision all combine to make him a well-qualified candidate to serve as American Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore.

He earned a B.S. from Carnegie Mellon University and was named Northern California 2010 Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young.

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 441.102 Plan of care for institutionalized beneficiaries. ( a ) The Medicaid agency must provide for a recorded individual plan of treatment and care to ensure that institutional care maintains the beneficiary at, or restores him to, the greatest possible degree of health and independent functioning.
( b ) The plan must include— ( 1 ) An initial review of the beneficiary's medical, psychiatric, and social needs— ( i ) Within 90 days after approval of the State plan provision for services in institutions for mental disease; and
( ii ) After that period, within 30 days after the date payments are initiated for services provided a beneficiary.
( 2 ) Periodic review of the beneficiary's medical, psychiatric, and social needs;
( 3 ) A determination, at least quarterly, of the beneficiary's need for continued institutional care and for alternative care arrangements;
( 4 ) Appropriate medical treatment in the institution; and
( 5 ) Appropriate social services.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Woodrow BEACH v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 81-KH-1110.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1981.

In re Woodrow Beach, applying for remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 89293.

Denied. Moot.