alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 415.180 Teaching setting requirements for the interpretation of diagnostic radiology and other diagnostic tests. ( a ) *General rule.* Physician fee schedule payment is made for the interpretation of diagnostic radiology and other diagnostic tests if the interpretation is performed or reviewed by a physician other than a resident. ( 1 ) In residency training sites that are located outside of a metropolitan statistical area only, physician fee schedule payment may also be made for the interpretation of diagnostic radiology and other diagnostic tests if the interpretation is performed by a resident when the teaching physician is present through audio/video real-time communications technology. The medical records must document the extent of the teaching physician's participation in the interpretation of review of the diagnostic radiology test.
( 2 ) For all teaching settings during the Public Health Emergency, as defined in § 400.200 of this chapter, for the COVID-19 pandemic, physician fee schedule payment may also be made for the interpretation of diagnostic radiology and other diagnostic tests if the interpretation is performed by a resident when the teaching physician is present through audio/video real-time communications technology. The medical records must document the extent of the teaching physician's participation in the interpretation or review of the diagnostic radiology or diagnostic test.
( b ) [Reserved]
[85 FR 85037, Dec. 28, 2020]
# C_2006135EN.01001401.xml

| 9.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4202 — Charterhouse/Elior)

(2006/C 135/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 May 2006, 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://ec.europa.eu/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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4202. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4202. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Curaçao National Day

# 									Curaçao National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 10, 2022

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Curaçao as you celebrate Curaçao Day.  The longstanding friendship between our two countries is rooted in our shared values and cultural ties.  Our united support for the rule of law and for democracy serves as the foundation for our strong cooperation to disrupt transnational criminal networks, allowing us to prevent 142 metric tons of narcotics – valued at $2.1 billion dollars – from causing devastating consequences to communities in Curacao and in the United States in the last year.  Our cooperation extends to expanding economic opportunity by encouraging economic investment, by supporting Curacao’s entrepreneurs through our exchange programs, and by furthering our joint initiative to create Curacao’s first English Immersion School.

Wishing the people of Curaçao a happy Curaçao Day and looking forward to our continued partnership.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCuracaoOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in (i) the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-68862)  pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan,
(ii) the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-09633)  pertaining to the
1995 Stock Purchase Plan and (iii) the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.
2-86405)  pertaining  to the 1983 Key  Employees  Stock Option Plan,  which were
previously filed by Merrimac Industries,  Inc. (the "Company"), of our report on
the consolidated financial statements of the Company and its subsidiaries, dated
February 18, 1997,  which report appears on page 22 of the Company's 1996 Annual
Report to  Stockholders  and is also  incorporated  by  reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 28, 1996.








                                                         /s/ J.H. COHN LLP
                                                         -----------------
                                                             J.H. Cohn LLP
Roseland, New Jersey
March 21, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1428

DEREK JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL LANE JOINT VENTURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se. John Benjamin Raftery, DECKELBAUM, OGENS & RAFTERY, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland; Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellants Derek Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman seek to appeal the district court’s order entered on April 8, 2009. The order granted various Defendants’ motions to stay discovery and motions for a more definite statement, and denied Plaintiffs’

motion to order Defendants to file all documents and to refile and rescan documents. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S .C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
§ 440.255 Limited services available to certain aliens. ( a ) *FFP for services.* FFP is available for services provided to aliens described in this section which are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) or services for pregnant women described in paragraph (b)(2).
( b ) *Legalized aliens eligible only for emergency services and services for pregnant women.* Aliens granted lawful temporary resident status, or lawful permanent resident status under sections 245A, 210 or 210A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, who are not in one of the exempt groups described in §§ 435.406(a)(3) and 436.406(a)(3) and who meet all other requirements for Medicaid will be eligible for the following services— ( 1 ) Emergency services required after the sudden onset of a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in: ( i ) Placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy;
( ii ) Serious impairment to bodily functions; or
( iii ) Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
( 2 ) Services for pregnant women which are included in the approved State plan. These services include routine prenatal care, labor and delivery, and routine post-partum care. States, at their option, may provide additional plan services for the treatment of conditions which may complicate the pregnancy or delivery.
( c ) Effective January 1, 1987, aliens who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or permanently residing in the United States under the color of law must receive the services necessary to treat the condition defined in paragraph (1) of this section if— ( 1 ) The alien has, after sudden onset, a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in: ( i ) Placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy;
( ii ) Serious impairment to bodily functions; or
( iii ) Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, and
( 2 ) The alien otherwise meets the requirements in §§ 435.406(c) and 436.406(c) of this subpart.
[55 FR 36823, Sept. 7, 1990; 56 FR 10807, Mar. 14, 1991]
HomeSection I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis...Long Description for the FY 2020 FMFIA Annual Assurance Process Diagram

# 									Long Description for the FY 2020 FMFIA Annual Assurance Process Diagram							

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services

December 1, 2020

Diagram illustrating the FMFIA Annual Assurance process:
        - Based on information gathered from knowledge of day-to-day operations; management program reviews; and OIG, GAO, and SIGAR audits; risk assessments; and other management-initiated evaluations, individual Statements of Assurance are provided by Ambassadors assigned overseas and from Assistant Secretaries in Washington, D.C.
        - In addition, to fulfill the requirements of OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A, the Senior Assessment Team makes an assessment of the adequacy of controls over reporting as of September 30.
        - The Management Control Steering Committee analyzes program issues reported within the Statements of Assurance, considers the Senior Assessment Team recommendation on reporting issues, and then votes on the severity of the issues and what kind of Statement of Assurance to recommend to the Secretary to sign.
        - Based on the Management Control Steering Committee’s recommendations, the Secretary of State issues the Department’s Annual Statement of Assurance.

Back to Text

Back to Top
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2003 of Universal American Financial Corp. (the "Company"), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 15, 2004

                                                     /s/ Robert A. Waegelein
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert A. Waegelein
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                       74
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

#### § 431.301 State plan requirements.

A State plan must provide, under a State statute that imposes legal sanctions, safeguards meeting the requirements of this subpart that restrict the use or disclosure of information concerning applicants and beneficiaries to purposes directly connected with the administration of the plan.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.920 Judicial review. The following areas under the CAP are not subject to administrative or judicial review: ( a ) The establishment of payment amounts.
( b ) The awarding of vendor contracts.
( c ) The establishment of competitive acquisition areas.
( d ) The selection of CAP drugs.
( e ) The bidding structure.
( f ) The number of vendors selected.
[70 FR 39099, July 6, 2005]
Order filed January 31 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00006

- CV

____________ FERMIN FRANCO, INDIV IDUALLY, AND A/N/F O F KAMILA FRANCO

AND DIEGO FRANCO , Appellant s

V.
SONIA MORALES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 24798



### ORDER
On August 22, 2018, appellant filed a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(g)
because the brief does n ot give a contain a statement of facts. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(h) because the brief does not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body
of the brief. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.1(h). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(i)because the brief must contain, under an appropriate heading, a clear and concise

argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to
the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 (i). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(j) because it does not contain a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of relief sought. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(j).
Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief. Appellant is ordered to file a
brief th at complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by February 15,
2019. If appellant files another brief that does not comply with Rule 38, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). If appellant fails to timely file a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution or the trial court’s judgment affirmed based on appellee’s
brief. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.8(a)(1), (3).

PER CURIAM
# C_2006121EN.01000801.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/8

---

Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-155/06)

(2006/C 121/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has failed to adopt all the final measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of the Council 96/29 (1) Euratom, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, because of the lack of provisions allowing for appropriate intervention in all situations of lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has failed to adopt all the final measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of the Council 96/29 (1) Euratom, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, because of the lack of provisions allowing for appropriate intervention in all situations of lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice;

1

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Title IX of the Directive lays down the obligations of Member States regarding the preparation and implementation of intervention in cases of radiological emergency. Article 53 provides that Member States are responsible for intervention in cases of lasting exposure.

The United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that their existing legislation fails to effect complete transposition of the directive, in so far as it does not provide for measures in all cases where a situation of radioactive contamination is identified. The complaint which provided the impetus for the present procedure exposed the fact that it is not possible to identify and to take measures against lasting exposure for past activities for which a licence had never been issued, intervention only being possible where exposure can be linked to a given past activity carried out on land where possible radioactive contamination is now being identified.

---

(1)  OJ L 314, 4.12.1996, p. 20.

1

---
§ 426.519 NCD record furnished to the Board. The NCD record furnished to the Board includes— ( a ) Documents included in § 426.518(a); and
( b ) Privileged information and proprietary data considered that must be filed with the Board under seal.
#### Lewis H. FOGLE, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Albert A. Legge, Deceased, Appellant, v. L. J. HARVEY, also known as Lewis Jackson Harvey, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Summary of Increases in Compensation for Non-management Directors



 Exhibit 10.22 
 Summary of Increases in Compensation 
 for Non-management Directors 
 Increases in Board and Committee Fees 
 On August 26,
2008, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (the “Company”) approved an increase in certain fees paid to our non-management directors. Going forward, each of our non-management directors will
receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000, with an additional fee of $2,000 for each Board meeting the director attends in person and $1,000 for each Board meeting the director attends telephonically. Directors who serve on a Board committee will
receive a $1,000 fee for each committee meeting attended in person and a $1,000 fee for each committee meeting attended telephonically. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee is entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000,
and the Chairman of the Governance Committee and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee each receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000. These fees are pro-rated and paid quarterly. 
 Increases in Restricted Stock Grants 
 On August 26, 2008,
the Board approved an increase in the annual grant of restricted stock made to non-management directors. Previously, each non-management director received an annual grant of restricted stock with a value equal to approximately $40,000, based on a
12-month average stock price, which was $29.874 on the May 28, 2008 grant date. Upon the Board’s approval on August 26, 2008, each non-management director received an additional 2008 grant of restricted stock with a value equal to
approximately $20,000, based on a 12-month average stock price, which was $32.3102 on the August 26, 2008 grant date. We expect that for 2009 and subsequent years, grants of restricted stock will be made on the date of the annual meeting with a
value equal to $60,000, based on a 12-month average stock price. For new directors, an annual award valued at $60,000 will be made on the date on which a director joins the Board. For the first year of a director’s three year term, the annual
award will vest in three equal installments on the dates of each of the next three annual meetings. For the second year of the director’s term, one-half of the annual restricted stock grant will vest on the date of each of the next two annual
meetings. For the final year of the term, the entire amount of the annual restricted stock grant will vest on the date of the following year’s annual meeting. 
 Voluntary Reduction of Board 2009 Total Target Compensation 
 At a Board meeting held on February 5, 2009, in recognition of the
weak economic environment, the non-management directors voluntarily reduced their previously-established 2009 compensation by 5%.
**C H**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 00 92 STATE OF MONANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL DUNNE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 5 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 4 2022

05/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0092
#### TERRELL-BROWN & COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. BOULEVARD NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a U. S. Banking Association, et al., Appellees.

No. 75-1182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 10, 1975.

PER CURTAM.

Appeal quashed.
# C_2005217EN.01002001.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (1)

1

(Poultrymeat - Marketing standards - Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling - Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

(2005/C 217/38)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-203/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany), made by decision of 28 April 2004, received at the Court on 7 May 2004, in the proceedings between Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG and Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2002 of 22 July 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the wording ‘reared under controlled conditions’ (‘kontrollierte Aufzucht’) constitutes an indication of the type of farming and for that reason that article does not allow an undertaking to include that wording on the labelling of a product falling within the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.

1

---