alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Information Resource Management...Leadership – Bureau of Information Resource Management

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Information Resource Management					

7											Items									

          -  							Fletcher, Dr.  Kelly						Chief Information OfficerBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Begnell, Bruce						Principal Deputy Chief Information OfficerBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Bowden, Al						Deputy Chief Information Officer, Cyber OperationsBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Johnson, Jeffrey D.						Deputy Chief Information Officer for Business   Management and PlanningBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Watson, Ivan						Deputy Chief Information Officer, OperationsBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Williams, Laura						Deputy Chief Information Officer for Foreign OperationsBureau of Information Resource Management 
          -  							Bennett, Donna S. 						Chief Information Security Officer 

Back to Top
§ 425.804 Reconsideration review process. ( a ) *Acknowledgement of reconsideration review request.* The reconsideration official sends an acknowledgement of the reconsideration review request to the ACO and CMS that includes the following: ( 1 ) Review procedures.
( 2 ) Procedures for submission of evidence including format and timelines.
( 3 ) A briefing schedule that permits each party to submit only one written brief, including any evidence, for consideration by the reconsideration official in support of the party's position. The submission of any additional briefs or supplemental evidence will be at the sole discretion of the reconsideration official.
( b ) *Burden of proof, standard of proof, and standards of review.* The burden of proof is on the ACO to demonstrate to the reconsideration official with convincing evidence that the initial determination is not consistent with the requirements of this part or applicable statutory authority.
( c ) *Reconsideration official.* The reconsideration official is an independent CMS official who did not participate in the initial determination that is being reviewed.
( d ) *Evidence.* ( 1 ) The reconsideration official's review will be based only on evidence submitted by the reconsideration official's requested deadline, unless otherwise requested by the reconsideration official.
( 2 ) Documentation submitted for the record as evidence cannot be documentation that was not previously submitted to CMS by the applicable deadline and in the requested format.
( 3 ) All evidence submitted by the ACO and CMS, in preparation for the reconsideration review will be shared with the other party to the hearing.
( e ) The reconsideration official will notify CMS and the ACO of his or her recommendation.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32845, June 9, 2015]
Exhibit 32.2  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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge; 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   /s/ Marsha A. MongeonMarsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer    March 31, 2009
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 31 day of December, 2008, by and between Wynn
Resorts, Limited (“Employer”) and Matt Maddox (“Employee”). Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as defined below). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Employer and
Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2005, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of May 5, 2008 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, Employer is willing and Employee desires to modify certain terms and conditions to the Agreement as more fully set forth herein;

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in
this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Termination of Affiliate Positions. Concurrent with Employee’s
resignation from Employer or upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Employee agrees to resign, and shall be deemed to have resigned, all other positions and Board of Director memberships that Employee may have held immediately prior to
Employee’s resignation from Employer or expiration or termination of the Agreement. 
 2. Section 409A Provision.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, if, at the time of Employee’s termination of employment with the Employer, he or she is a “specified employee” as defined in Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code (the “Code”), and one or more of the payments or benefits received or to be received by Employee pursuant to the Agreement would constitute deferred compensation subject to Section 409A, no such payment or benefit will be
provided under the Agreement until the earlier of: (a) the date that is six (6) months following Employee’s termination of employment with the Employer or (b) the Employee’s death. The provisions of this Section shall only
apply to the extent required to avoid Employee’s incurrence of any penalty tax or interest under Section 409A of the Code or any regulations or Treasury guidance promulgated thereunder. In addition, if any provision of the Agreement would
cause Employee to incur any penalty tax or interest under Section 409A of the Code or any regulations or Treasury guidance promulgated thereunder, the Employer may reform such provision to maintain the maximum extent practicable the original
intent of the applicable provision without violating the provisions of Section 409A of the Code. 







 2. Other Provisions of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being modified
only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED	 		 	EMPLOYEE
					
	By:	 	/s/ Marc D. Schorr	 		 		 	/s/ Matt Maddox
		 	 Marc D. Schorr
 Chief Operating Officer
	 		 		 	Matt Maddox
#### John Willie TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 1, 1980.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Christopher S. Quarles, Certified Legal Intern, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edwin H. Duff, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order, judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida. The Public Defender has filed an *An-ders*
      1 motion and brief, requesting leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant and representing to this court that no reversible error appears. On February 21, 1980 this court gave the appellant thirty (30) days within which to file a brief in his own behalf. No such brief has been filed. The court has reviewed the briefs and the record herein and no appealable issue appears.

We have no jurisdiction herein because the record reflects that appellant entered a *1296plea of guilty to one count of grand larceny and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. A defendant may not appeal from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty, Rule 9.140(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, except as to issues which occur contemporaneously with the entry of the plea. *Robinson v. State,*373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979); *Lawrence v. State,*385 So.2d 167 (Fla.5th DCA 1980). There has been no motion in the trial court for leave to withdraw the plea. *Counts v. State,*376 So.2d 59 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). A dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to appellant seeking collateral relief as may be appropriate.

The motion of the Public Defender to withdraw is hereby granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur.

. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2611-071]

On September 1, 2009, Madison Paper Industries (transferor) and Hydro Kennebec LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license of the Hydro Kennebec Project located in Kennebec and Somerset Counties, Maine, on the Kennebec River.

Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Hydro Kennebec Project from the transferor to the transferee.

*Applicant Contact:*                     Transferor: Madison Paper Industries—Ms. Sarah A. Verville, Pierce Atwood LLP, One Monument Square, Portland, ME 04101, (207) 791-1100 e-mail:                     *sverville@pterceatwood.com*. Transferee: Hydro Kennebec LLC—Mr. Douglas W. Everette, Patton Boggs LLP, 2550 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, phone (202) 457-5618, e-mail:                     *deverette@pattonboggs.com*.                

*FERC Contact:*                     Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.                

                    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: October 1, 2009. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​filing-comments.asp*. More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​elibrary.asp*. Enter the docket number (P-2611-071) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-21871 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.820 Corrective action under the MEQC program. The State must— ( a ) Take action to correct any active or negative case errors, including deficiencies, found in the MEQC pilot sampled cases in accordance with instructions established by CMS;
( b ) By the August 1 following the MEQC review period, submit to CMS a report that— ( 1 ) Identifies the root cause and any trends found in the case review findings.
( 2 ) Offers corrective actions for each unique error and deficiency finding based on the analysis provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) In the corrective action report, the State must provide updates on corrective actions reported for the previous MEQC pilot.
[82 FR 31184, July 5, 2017]
#### Robert YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-514.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 10, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1975.

*308Koeppel, Stark, Marks & Newmark, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT, A., Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is. an appeal from a revocation of probation. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of marijuana. After having been placed upon probation without adjudication of guilt, an affidavit alleging several violations of the conditions of his probation was filed. After hearing, he was found by the sentencing judge to have violated two of the conditions, (d) and (f), of the order placing him on probation. They are: “(d) Avoid injurious or vicious habits; avoid association with persons of harmful character or bad reputation” and “(f) Neither carry nor own any weapons without first securing the consent of Probation Supervisor.”

Appellant first urges that he was entitled to discharge under the speedy trial rule 3.191(a)(1), CrPR, because the Affidavit of Violation of Probation was filed December 14, 1973, and the term of probation expired January 20, 1974. The Motion to Discharge was filed January 23, 1974. Appellant argued before the trial court that the delay of 126 days between the date of the alleged probation violation and the formal filing of the probation violation affidavit denied the defendant due process and violated the spirit of rule 3.-191(a)(1), CrPR. The trial court correctly denied the motion. We note that appellant does not urge that the rule was violated since the rule does not by its terms apply to a proceeding to revoke probation. We hold that neither the spirit of the rule nor the requirement for due process upon charges of a violation of parole were shown to have been violated in this case. See Bernhardt v. State, Fla.1974, 288 So.2d 490.

Appellant’s second point claims that the affidavit of violation of probation and attached exhibits were so replete with hearsay as to be prejudicial to the defendant and deny him a fair hearing. The affidavit and exhibits went far beyond the necessary allegations of such a document. At a trial, the introduction of such evidence would have been prejudicial. But we deal here with a sentencing function not a trial. See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Blackburn v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 261 So.2d 861. Direct evidence is full and complete to show that the appellant was arrested during the term of his probation. He was found in an automobile *309with another person shown to be a convicted felon. In the car were loaded shotguns and a face mask. The evidence clearly-supported the court’s finding that the appellant had violated both conditions (d) and (f) set forth above. Under these conditions, the hearsay exhibits were not sufficient to avoid the finding of the trial judge.

Appellant’s point addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence at the hearing does not present error for the reasons discussed above.

Affirmed.
HomeUpdates – Office of Overseas Schools...New Regional Education Officer (REO) for Near East and South Asia

# 									New Regional Education Officer (REO) for Near East and South Asia							

Office of Overseas Schools

July 19, 2023

##### Welcome REOs

It is the Office of Overseas Schools’ (A/OPR/OS) pleasure to announce a new Regional Education Officer (REO). Mr. Mike Emborsky will be joining OS covering the Near East and South Asia. Mr. Emborsky is looking forward to providing support to the schools and to U.S. Embassies and Consulates throughout his region.

##### New REO Biography

*Mr. Mike Emborsky new REO for Near East and South Asia.*

**Mr. Michael Emborsky** is originally from western New York and began his career as an English and social studies teacher to middle and high school students in Catskill, New York before beginning his international teaching career. Mike taught in State Department-assisted schools in Japan, Austria, Morocco and Dubai before working as a principal in Ecuador, Senegal and Abu Dhabi, and then as a director of the American Cooperative School of Tunis. Mike has also served on the International School Committee for Middle States accreditation. Mike received a BA in English Education from Siena College in Albany, New York, a MA in English Education from SUNY Albany, a MS in Educational Leadership from Niagara University and doctoral work in Educational Leadership at Lehigh University. Mike holds lifetime teaching and administrative credentials from New York State. 

Mr. Emborsky is available to consult with USG families on bidding and best fit. Please email OverseasSchools@state.gov to connect.

 

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Enzon Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ralph
del Campo, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
 or15(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.

|                  |                                |                     | 
|----------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------- | 
|November 4,
 2010 | By:                            | /s/Ralph del
 Campo | 
|                  |                                |                    
|                  | Ralph del
 Campo              
|                  | Chief Operating
 Officer      
|                  | (Principal
 Executive Officer)

---
§ 435.845 Medically needy resource eligibility. To determine eligibility on the basis of resources for medically needy individuals, the agency must: ( a ) Consider only the individual's resources and those that are considered available to him under the financial responsibility requirements for relatives in § 435.602.
( b ) Deduct the amounts that would be deducted in determining resource eligibility for the medically needy group as provided for in § 435.601 or under the criteria of States using more restrictive criteria than SSI as provided for in § 435.121. In determining the amount of an individual's resources for Medicaid eligibility, States must count amounts of resources that otherwise would not be counted under the conditional eligibility provisions of the SSI or AFDC programs.
( c ) Apply the resource standard specified under § 435.840.
[58 FR 4933, Jan. 19, 1993]
§ 456.206 Organization and composition of UR committee; disqualification from UR committee membership. ( a ) For the purpose of this subpart, “UR committee” includes any group organized under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) The UR committee must be composed of two or more physicians, one of whom is knowledgeable in the diagnosis and treatment of mental diseases, and assisted by other professional personnel.
( c ) The UR committee must be constituted as— ( 1 ) A committee of the mental hospital staff;
( 2 ) A group outside the mental hospital staff, established by the local medical or osteopathic society and at least some of the hospitals and SNFs in the locality; or
( 3 ) A group capable of performing utilization review, established and organized in a manner approved by the Secretary.
( d ) The UR committee may not include any individual who— ( 1 ) Is directly responsible for the care of patients whose care is being reviewed; or
( 2 ) Has a financial interest in any mental hospital.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William PASCHEL v. Ralph PARNELL, Attorney at Law.

No. 63841.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1979.

In re William Paschel, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Webster.

Writ denied.
# A

^ U N I T E D V I \ .1 . . . 1

- 1 r Septembe r1 , 201 0 Ms . Aloh a Le

y Associat e Directo r Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysis , X86-31 0 120 0 Ne wJerseyAvenue , S E Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Reference : DOT-0ST-2010-012 4 Dea rAloha , Unite d Airlines , an d it s regiona l partner s operatin g a s Unite d Express , ar e constantl yevaluatin g ne w rout e opportunities . W e have bee n considerin g th e potentia l fo rne wservic e fro m Kalispell , Montan a an d th e Glacie rPark Internationa l Airpor t t o ou rhu b a t San Francisc o International . On e facto ri n ou rconsideratio n o f ne wrout e option s i s th e availabilit yo f ris k abatemen t an d marketin g suppor t fro m th e community . Kalispel l an d th e Glacie rPar k Internationa l Airpor t hav e recentlymad e applicatio n t o th e Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m fo rGran t fundin g t o suppor t potentia l Unite d Express servic e fro m Kalispel l t o San Francisco . Th e availabilit yo f Gran t fundin g fo rris k abatemen t an d marketin g wil l b e a facto ri n ou rconsideratio n o f ne wrout e an d servic e option s i n 201 1 an d beyond . Unite d Airlines support s KalispeW' s appVtcatio n fo rGran t Progra m funding . Best regards .

^ . Gre g Kaldah l Vice Presiden t Plannin g