alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 483.114 Annual review of NF residents. ( a ) *Individuals with mental illness.* For each resident of a NF who has mental illness, the State mental health authority must determine in accordance with § 483.130 whether, because of the resident's physical and mental condition, the resident requires— ( 1 ) The level of services provided by— ( i ) A NF;
( ii ) An inpatient psychiatric hospital for individuals under age 21, as described in section 1905(h) of the Act; or
( iii ) An institution for mental diseases providing medical assistance to individuals age 65 or older; and
( 2 ) Specialized services for mental illness, as defined in § 483.120.
( b ) *Individuals with intellectual disability.* For each resident of a NF who has intellectual disability, the State intellectual disability or developmental disability authority must determine in accordance with § 483.130 whether, because of his or her physical or mental condition, the resident requires— ( 1 ) The level of services provided by a NF or an intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities; and
( 2 ) Specialized services for intellectual disability as defined in § 483.120.
( c ) *Frequency of review* — ( 1 ) A review and determination must be conducted for each resident of a Medicaid NF who has mental illness or intellectual disability not less often than annually.
( 2 ) “Annually” is defined as occurring within every fourth quarter after the previous preadmission screen or annual resident review.
( d ) *April 1, 1990 deadline for initial reviews.* The first set of annual reviews on residents who entered the NF prior to January 1, 1989, must be completed by April 1, 1990.
#### Ex parte BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, Alabama. In re ALABAMA STATE TENURE COMMISSION v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, Alabama.

79-208.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 11, 1980.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### Guion T. DeLOACH, individually and as representative of a class, Appellant, v. LGS CONCORD CORPORATION, and as general partner of NorCon, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, Appellee.

No. 75-420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 1, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### Geology of the Bernal-Jalpan area, Estado de Queretaro, Mexico

By: Kenneth K. Segerstrom

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1104B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (11557 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-42457 and 33-50332) of RegeneRx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly, Alpha 1 Biomedicals, Inc.) of our report
dated March 6, 2001, relating to the balance sheets of RegeneRx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the
years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-KSB of RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.


/s/Reznick Fedder & Silverman


Bethesda, Maryland
April 2, 2001
Home2022 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Kent, George P. – Republic of Estonia- September 2022

# 									Kent, George P. – Republic of Estonia- September 2022							

Certificate of Competency

September 9, 2022

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 Estonia

CANDIDATE: George P. Kent

 

George P. Kent, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, most recently served as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State. Previously, he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Kyiv, Ukraine. Prior to that, Kent was the Senior Anti-Corruption Coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau. He has also served as Director for Europe and Asia in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. Since joining the Foreign Service in 1992, Kent has served in U.S. Diplomatic Missions in Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Warsaw, Poland; Bangkok, Thailand (twice), and Kyiv, Ukraine (twice). Kent has devoted the bulk of his career, spanning 30 years, to the European and Eurasian region. His extensive and substantive regional experience and educational background, coupled with his management experience and demonstrated ability to lead large interagency teams as well as policy-oriented offices, makes him a well-qualified candidate to be the U.S. Ambassador to Estonia.

Other State Department assignments include Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Operations Center Watch Officer; and Thai desk officer. Kent holds an A.B. from Harvard in Russian History and Literature, an M.A. from Johns Hopkins’ SAIS, and an M.S. from the National Defense University’s Eisenhower School. He speaks Ukrainian, Russian, and Thai. Kent is a Kirby Simon Fund Trustee.

Back to Top
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 23

- 00400

- CR

__________________ STEVEN CRAIG ESKRIDGE , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221 st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23

- 03

- 04553

- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 13, 2023, the trial court sentenced Steven Craig Eskridge on an
indictment for theft

. On December 18, 2023, Eskridge filed a notice of appeal pro

se
. The Distr ict Clerk then sent Eskridge’s notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification to the Ninth Court of Appeals. The trial court’s certification shows that this is a plea

- bargain case and that Eskridge has no right to appeal.2 On Dec ember 2 0 , 2023, we not ified the parties that we would dismiss the appeal unless the appellant established the trial court ’ s certification was incorrect. Even though Eskridge responded to the Court ’ s notice, his response fails to establish
that the trial court ’ s certification th at s tate s he has no right to appeal is incorrect.
Because the record lacks a certification that shows Eskridge has the right of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on February 6, 2024 Opinion Delivered February 7, 20 24 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 We note that it appears Eskridge filed a notice of appeal too late to perfect an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, 26.3.
§ 424.575 Rural emergency hospitals. ( a ) A rural emergency hospital (as defined in § 485.502 of this chapter) must comply with all applicable provisions in this subpart in order to enroll and maintain enrollment in Medicare.
( b ) A provider that was enrolled in Medicare as of December 27, 2020, as a critical access hospital or a hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act) with not more than 50 beds located in a county (or equivalent unit of local government) in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act) (or treated as being located in a rural area pursuant to section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Social Security Act) converts its existing enrollment to that of a rural emergency hospital (as defined in § 485.502 of this chapter) via a Form CMS-855A change of information application per § 424.516 rather than a Form CMS-855A initial enrollment application.
[87 FR 72293, Nov. 23, 2022]
## v::RARTMENTO F Pil l A<;K I 

## • (^^yPORWfO N •ijj,i,ii*iBjiHijr a Dedicate d t o you rsucces s www.piiiaskitech.ed u 

# •JOPEmm s Novembe r1 , 201 0 U.S . Departmen t ofTransportatio n Docke t Operations , IVI-3 0 West Buildin g groun d floo r Roo m W12-14 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , SE . Washington , D C 2059 0 SUBJECT : Reques t fo rextensio n ofexemption . Docke t Numbe rFAA-2002-1329 1 Dea rSi ro rMadam , I a m writin g i n respons e ofth e notic e tha t m yexemptio n fo rFAAtestin g wil l expir e Novembe r30 , 2010 . I sen t th e origina l lette r(se e attached ) o n Sept . 20 , 2010 . Sinc e w e ar e withi n 3 0 day s o fth e expiratio n dat e o fm ycurren t exemptio n I a m writte n t o se e i fyo u nee d additiona l informatio n concernin g th e renewa l o fthi s exemption . I fi t woul d b e bette rt o proces s thi s exemptio n on-lin e pleas e contac t me . I wa s no t abl e t o figur e ou t th e renewa l proces s o n you rwebsite . I wil l d o whateve rI nee d t o d o t o assis t you . Sincerely , Steve n L . Hotle , Directo r Pulask i Technica l Colleg e - Aviatio n Technolog yCente r PH : (501)835-542 0

Aviatio n Maintenanc e Technolog yCente r i6o o Wes t Marylan d Avenu e Nort h Little Rock . A R 7212 0 Phon e 501-835-542 0 Fa x501-834-785 9

# PULASK I •miiiii^niini H Oedicete d t o you rsucces s www.putaskiiec h ed u Septembe r28 , 201 0 U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 West Buildin g groun d floo r Roo m W12-14 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , SE . Washington , D C 2059 0 SUBJECT : Reques t fo rextension o fexemption . Docke t Numbe rFAA-2002-1329 1 Dea rSi ro rMadam , I a m writin g i n respons e o fth e notic e tha t m yexemptio n fo rFAAtestin g wil l expir e Novembe r30 , 2010 . I trie d t o complet e thi s requiremen t on-lin e bu t coul d no t fin d th e correc t locatio n o n you rwe b site . I reques t tha t a n extension o fth e exemptio n b e approve d fo rm yorganization . Th e abilit yt o tes t student s upo n th e completio n oftrainin g ha s greatl ybenefite d thei rabilit y t o succee d i n thei rpursui t o fFAAmechanic s certification . I n th e pas t a studen t ha d t o complet e 1 2 month s oftrainin g befor e bein g evaluate d o n th e firs t 3 month s o ftha t training . Sinc e th e approva l o fthi s exemptio n th e completio n rat e ofou rcurriculu m ha s increased . Th e numbe ro fstudent s completin g th e entir e maintenanc e trainin g progra m ha s als o increased . Wit h th e implantatio n o fthi s exemptio n student s ar e mor e confiden t an d sel frelian t a s t o thei rabilit yt o succee d i n th e program . I t ha s benefite d thi s projra m imriTensely . I hop e t o hav e ou rexemptio n extende d anothe r2 years . Pleas e contac t m e i fyo u hav e an yquestions . Sincerely , Steve n L . Hotle , Directo r Pulask i Technica l Colleg e - Aviatio n Technolog yCente r PH : (501)835-542 0

Aviatio n Maintenanc e Technolog yCente r i6o o Wes t Marylan d Avenu e Nort h Little Rock . A R 7212 0 Phon e 501-835-542 0 Fa x501-834-785 9
§ 418.78 Conditions of participation—Volunteers. The hospice must use volunteers to the extent specified in paragraph (e) of this section. These volunteers must be used in defined roles and under the supervision of a designated hospice employee. ( a ) *Standard: Training.* The hospice must maintain, document, and provide volunteer orientation and training that is consistent with hospice industry standards.
( b ) *Standard: Role.* Volunteers must be used in day-to-day administrative and/or direct patient care roles.
( c ) *Standard: Recruiting and retaining.* The hospice must document and demonstrate viable and ongoing efforts to recruit and retain volunteers.
( d ) *Standard: Cost saving.* The hospice must document the cost savings achieved through the use of volunteers. Documentation must include the following: ( 1 ) The identification of each position that is occupied by a volunteer.
( 2 ) The work time spent by volunteers occupying those positions.
( 3 ) Estimates of the dollar costs that the hospice would have incurred if paid employees occupied the positions identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for the amount of time specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
( e ) *Standard: Level of activity.* Volunteers must provide day-to-day administrative and/or direct patient care services in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract staff. The hospice must maintain records on the use of volunteers for patient care and administrative services, including the type of services and time worked.
#### JOHN BIRCSAK, PROSECUTOR, v. JOSEPH J. NOVAK, CITY CLERK OF GARFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued October 5, 1939

Decided January 4, 1940.

Before Justices Parker, Bodine and Perskie.

*539For the prosecutor, *William J. Egan (Robert L. Hood,*of counsel).

For the defendants, *Henry L. Janowski (James A. Major,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

This is a contest over the office of Receiver of Taxes of Garfield. Prosecutor, in possession of the office, challenges the action of the Mayor in undertaking to appoint, and of the Council in undertaking to confirm, one Nicholas T. Kuxmack as Receiver of Taxes. *Bradshaw*v. *Camden,*39 *N. J. L.*416; *Moore*v. *Bradley Beach,*87 *Id.*391; *Murphy*v. *Freeholders,*92 *Id.*244; *Stevenson*v. *Bridgeton,*123 *Id.*219.

The prosecutor was first appointed to the office in question on January 1st, 1934, for a term fixed by ordinance at two years. lie was not formally reappointed on January 1st, 1936, or during that year, but continued to serve *de facto*as a “hold-over” for all of 1936, and was so serving in 1937. On June 2d, 1937, there was enacted chapter 142 of *Pamph. L.*1937, entitled “An act fixing the term of office of tax collector in municipalities of this state,” and the first two sections of which read as follows:

> “1. Any person who shall hereafter be appointed or elected to the position or office of tax collector in any municipality in this state shall hold his said office for a period of four years from the date of his said election or appointment.”

> “2. The term Tax collector’ as used in this act shall be construed to mean and include the official charged with the duty of collecting taxes upon real and personal property in each municipality of this state.”

There is a third section saving civil service status, not here material.

On November 10th, 1937, at a Council meeting, the Mayor, as appointing officer, submitted to the Council the appointment of prosecutor “as Receiver of Taxes for a term prescribed by statute” and the appointment was on motion confirmed. Prosecutor duly qualified, and has continued to perform the duties of his office.

*540On January 1st, 1938, a newly elected Mayor and Council came into office, and on April 12th, 1939, the then Mayor appointed, and the Council confirmed Kuzmack as Beceiver of Taxes, as already stated.

A certain political situation seems to be stipulated into the-case: but we are concerned solely with questions of legal right. The legal argument is that by *Pamph. L.*1917, p. 840, and *Comp. Stat., p.*3488, *pi.*127, the term of office must begin on January 1st. But for the act of 1937 this would be controlling, and for present purposes it may be conceded that apart from that act, the appointment in question would be ineffective. But the 1937 act is specific in its terms and while not expressly repealing prior inconsistent legislation, is perfectly clear in that intent.

The “appointment” of April 12th, 1939, will be set aside, with costs.
§ 447.405 Amount of required minimum payments. ( a ) For CYs 2013 and 2014, a state must pay for physician services described in § 447.400 based on the lower of: ( 1 ) The Medicare Part B fee schedule rate that is applicable to the specific site of service or, at the state's option, the office setting and is also adjusted for either the specific geographic location of the service or reflects the mean over all counties of the rate for each E&M code. If there is no applicable rate, the rate specified in a fee schedule established and announced by CMS (that is, the product of multiplying the Medicare CF in effect at the beginning of CYs 2013 or 2014 (or the CY 2009 CF, if higher) and the CY 2013 and 2014 relative value units (RVUs).
( 2 ) The provider's actual billed charge for the service.
( b ) For vaccines provided under the Vaccines for Children Program in CYs 2013 and 2014, a State must pay the lesser of: ( 1 ) The Regional Maximum Administration Fee; or,
( 2 ) The Medicare fee schedule rate in CY 2013 or 2014 (or, if higher, the rate using the 2009 conversion factor and the 2013 and 2014 RVUs) for code 90460.
[77 FR 66700, Nov. 6, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 74382, Dec. 14, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                                       0000710507
<NAME>                                First Banks, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                        142,125
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2,840
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               23,515
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                3,110
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   773,271
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         19,149
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                0
<LOANS>                                     3,002,200  
<ALLOWANCE>                                    50,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,165,014   
<DEPOSITS>                                  3,684,595 
<SHORT-TERM>                                   59,297
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            56,402
<LONG-TERM>                                   133,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    13,063
<COMMON>                                        5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                    212,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              4,165,014
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               252,766
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              36,256
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                6,079
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              295,101
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            138,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            148,831
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         146,270
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  11,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              2,456
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               110,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                50,380
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     50,380
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   33,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                1,181.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1,134.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   8.22
<LOANS-NON>                                    18,610
<LOANS-PAST>                                    2,725
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                5,456
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                30,700
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               46,781
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 (16,832)
<RECOVERIES>                                    9,230
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              50,509
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           50,509
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         5,076
        


</TABLE>
41134.

#### RITCHIE GAS OF CORNELIA, INC. v. FERGUSON et al.

Decided. February 11, 1965.

*188
      *Baker, McDaniel & Hall, William J. McDaniel, Kimsey & Kimsey, Herbert B. Kimsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jack N. Gunter, Telford, Wayne & Greer, Tifton L. Greer,*contra.

Eberhakdt, Judge.

Giving that construction to the order or judgment overruling the plea of res judicata which would support it, the recital that a general demurrer filed by Ritchie Gas Company, Inc. to the second suit was stricken on the ground that the demurrant was not a party to that suit, together with the appearance of Ritchie Gas of Cornelia, Inc. filing the plea in the same action is sufficient to indicate that these were two separate corporations and that the naming of Ritchie Gas Company, Inc. as defendant in the first suit was not a mere misnomer, thus the case of *Rhodes v. City of Louisville,*121 Ga. 551 (49 SE 681) has no application. Consequently, the order sustaining the general demurrer of Ritchie Gas of Cornelia, Inc. to the first suit and dismissal of the petition as to it could not have the effect of dismissing the petition as to Ritchie Gas Company, Inc., and as to it the suit is still pending. Nothing in that petition indicates that Ritchie Gas of Cornelia, Inc. was a necessary or proper party; thus there was no defect to cure in that respect as was the case in *Mayor &c. of Brunswick v. Finney,*54 Ga. 317, and the filing of a general demurrer in the first suit by Ritchie Gas of Cornelia, Inc. had no better standing than an attempted intervention in a suit at law. See *Todd v. Conner,*220 Ga. 173, 179 (137 SE2d 614).

The two suits not being between the same parties,1 the sustaining of the demurrer of one who was not a party to the first suit is not res judicata as to the second. *Russ Transport, Inc.*
      *189
      *v. Jones,*104 Ga. App. 612 (122 SE2d 282); *Sims T. V., Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,*108 Ga. App. 41, 44 (131 SE2d 790); *Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works,*21 Ga. App. 45 (1) (93 SE 511). Not is the judgment a bar when it is not based upon the merits of the case. *Keith v. Darby,*104 Ga. App. 624 (1, 3) (122 SE2d 463); *Fain v. Hughes,*108 Ga. 537 (33 SE 1012).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

While the phrase “same parties” does not mean that all of the parties on the respective sides of the litigation in the two cases shall have been identical, it does mean that those who invoke the defense and against whom it is invoked must be the same. *Darling-Stores Corp. v. Beatus,*199 Ga. 215 (33 SE2d 701).