alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Centocor, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-
35729, 33-38110, 33-16286, 33-7311, 33-23481, 33-26810, 33-44231, 33-29141 and
333-00337 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-35731, 2-86486, 33-
35730, 33-00167, 33-16285, 33-16284 and 33-23480 on Form S-8 of Centocor, Inc.
of our report dated February 14, 1996 except for Note 20 which is as of March
15, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Centocor, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, cashflows, shareholders' equity and related
consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-
year period ended December 31, 1995, and of our report dated February 14, 1996
relating to the balance sheets of Centocor Partners III, L.P. as of December 31,
1995 and 1994 and the related statements of operations, cash flows and partners'
capital for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995
which reports appear in the December 31, 1995 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Centocor, Inc.


KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 15, 1996
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.176 Amount of payments. For items and services, for which payment is made under section 1881(b)(7), section 1881(b)(12), and section 1881(b)(14) of the Act: ( a ) If the beneficiary has incurred the full deductible applicable under Part B of Medicare before the dialysis treatment, Medicare pays the ESRD facility 80 percent of its prospective rate.
( b ) If the beneficiary has not incurred the full deductible applicable under Part B of Medicare before the dialysis treatment, CMS subtracts the amount applicable to the deductible from the ESRD facility's prospective rate and pays the facility 80 percent of the remainder, if any.
[75 FR 49199, Aug. 12, 2010]
HomeFunding Opportunity Announcements...FY 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in South Sudan

# 									FY 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in South Sudan							

Funding Opportunity Announcement

January 26, 2021

						Download Notice												[405 KB]

 

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationRefugee and Humanitarian AssistanceSouth Sudan

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James M. BANKS v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institution, et al.

No. 65073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re James M. Banks, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.
§ 455.106 Disclosure by providers: Information on persons convicted of crimes. ( a ) *Information that must be disclosed.* Before the Medicaid agency enters into or renews a provider agreement, or at any time upon written request by the Medicaid agency, the provider must disclose to the Medicaid agency the identity of any person who: ( 1 ) Has ownership or control interest in the provider, or is an agent or managing employee of the provider; and
( 2 ) Has been convicted of a criminal offense related to that person's involvement in any program under Medicare, Medicaid, or the title XX services program since the inception of those programs.
( b ) *Notification to Inspector General.* ( 1 ) The Medicaid agency must notify the Inspector General of the Department of any disclosures made under paragraph (a) of this section within 20 working days from the date it receives the information.
( 2 ) The agency must also promptly notify the Inspector General of the Department of any action it takes on the provider's application for participation in the program.
( c ) *Denial or termination of provider participation.* ( 1 ) The Medicaid agency may refuse to enter into or renew an agreement with a provider if any person who has an ownership or control interest in the provider, or who is an agent or managing employee of the provider, has been convicted of a criminal offense related to that person's involvement in any program established under Medicare, Medicaid or the title XX Services Program.
( 2 ) The Medicaid agency may refuse to enter into or may terminate a provider agreement if it determines that the provider did not fully and accurately make any disclosure required under paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 438.320 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Access,* as it pertains to external quality review, means the timely use of services to achieve optimal outcomes, as evidenced by managed care plans successfully demonstrating and reporting on outcome information for the availability and timeliness elements defined under § 438.68 (Network adequacy standards) and § 438.206 (Availability of services).
*EQR* stands for external quality review.
*EQRO* stands for external quality review organization.
*External quality review* means the analysis and evaluation by an EQRO, of aggregated information on quality, timeliness, and access to the health care services that an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, or PCCM entity (described in § 438.310(c)(2)), or their contractors furnish to Medicaid beneficiaries.
*External quality review organization* means an organization that meets the competence and independence requirements set forth in § 438.354, and performs external quality review, other EQR-related activities as set forth in § 438.358, or both.
*Financial relationship* means— ( 1 ) A direct or indirect ownership or investment interest (including an option or nonvested interest) in any entity. This direct or indirect interest may be in the form of equity, debt, or other means, and includes any indirect ownership or investment interest no matter how many levels removed from a direct interest; or
( 2 ) A compensation arrangement with an entity.
*Health care services* means all Medicaid services provided by an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP under contract with the State Medicaid agency in any setting, including but not limited to medical care, behavioral health care, and long-term services and supports.
*Outcomes* means changes in patient health, functional status, satisfaction or goal achievement that result from health care or supportive services.
*Quality,* as it pertains to external quality review, means the degree to which an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, or PCCM entity (described in § 438.310(c)(2)) increases the likelihood of desired outcomes of its enrollees through: ( 1 ) Its structural and operational characteristics.
( 2 ) The provision of services that are consistent with current professional, evidenced-based-knowledge.
( 3 ) Interventions for performance improvement.
*Validation* means the review of information, data, and procedures to determine the extent to which they are accurate, reliable, free from bias, and in accord with standards for data collection and analysis.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10323 Summary Calendar

ROBERT LEE BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRIAN K. CLENDENNEN; JAIME QUINTANILLA; THOMAS B. DOHERTY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-367-BA

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Lee Brown, Texas prisoner # 637904, appeals the dismissal of his section 1983 claim on grounds of failure to state a claim. We AFFIRM. Brown has not alleged “‘a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.’” Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 800 (1996),(quoting Cain v. Lane , 857 F.2d 1139, 1143 n.6 (7th Cir.No. 97-10323 -2- 1988). Other than his conclusory allegations, Brown presents no facts indicating a retaliatory animus for Doherty’s search of his cell or the disciplinary proceeding against him. Bald assertions of retaliation are not enough to support a section 1983 claim. Id. Brown is not entitled to relief relative to the dismissal of his claims against appellees Clendennen and Quintanilla because he has not adverted to them in his briefs. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 99-583.

#### Emerson *v.*Delta Airlines, Inc., et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### A. D. HENDERSON et al., Appellants, v. Peter PETRI, Appellee.

No. II-410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 20, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1979.

Dock Blanchard, Ocala, and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Charles Ruse, Jr., and George A. Steloge-annis, Ocala, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the final judgment of the Circuit Court, Marion County, entered on a jury verdict in a suit for replevin, trespass and conversion brought by plaintiff Petri (appellee herein) against defendants (appellants herein) who counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence and conversion. The jury awarded Petri possession of the personal property in question and punitive damages against the defendant A. D. Henderson and defendant Rosemary Henderson. The court entered judgment on the verdict and added inter*793est1 at the legal rate from the date of detention. A verdict and judgment was also entered for the defendant/counter-plaintiffs, A. D. Henderson and Rosemary Henderson, on their claim of open account and conversion against Petri, but is not an issue on this appeal.

Our examination of the record reveals that the verdict does not address nor resolve the several causes of action made by the pleading nor does the judgment entirely accord with the verdict. However, inasmuch as the parties have not raised these issues in their briefs, we will not address them here. The record, briefs, and argument of counsel have been considered, and we find that the award of punitive damages in this case is neither legally nor factually supportable and must be set aside.

Accordingly, that portion of the judgment below which awards punitive damages against the appellants is REVERSED and the balance of the judgment AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

1

. Contra: Cary & Co. v. *Hyer,*91 Fla. 322, 107 So. 684, 688 (1926); See Florida Statute § 78.-01.
§ 441.480 Use of a representative. ( a ) States may permit participants to appoint a representative to direct the provision of self-directed PAS on their behalf. The following types of representatives are permissible: ( 1 ) A minor child's parent or guardian.
( 2 ) An individual recognized under State law to act on behalf of an incapacitated adult.
( 3 ) A State-mandated representative, after approval by CMS of the State criteria, if the participant has demonstrated, after additional counseling, information, training or assistance, the inability to self-direct PAS.
( b ) A person acting as a representative for a participant receiving self-directed PAS is prohibited from acting as a provider of self-directed PAS to the participant.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HARMONY TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1155

[June 9, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrea Gundersen, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18-

028391.

Beth G. Lindie and Jeremy M. Zubkoff of Esler & Lindie, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

David Rosenberg of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, 

PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 419.20 Hospitals subject to the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. ( a ) *Applicability.* The hospital outpatient prospective payment system is applicable to any hospital participating in the Medicare program, except those specified in paragraph (b) of this section, for services furnished on or after August 1, 2000.
( b ) *Hospitals excluded from the outpatient prospective payment system.* ( 1 ) Those services furnished by Maryland hospitals that are paid under a cost containment waiver in accordance with section 1814(b)(3) of the Act are excluded from the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
( 2 ) Critical access hospitals (CAHs) are excluded from the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
( 3 ) A hospital located outside one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is excluded from the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
( 4 ) A hospital of the Indian Health Service.
( 5 ) A rural emergency hospital (REH).
[65 FR 18542, Apr. 7, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 59922, Nov. 30, 2001; 88 FR 82180, Nov. 22, 2023]
#### PARLIAMENT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, and South Florida Underground Utilities, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. BASKER BUILDING CORP., a Florida Corporation, etc., Appellee.

No. 73-1345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2019

Nos. 04-19-00292-CR & 04-19-00293

Gerald Edwin HODGES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2018CR8989 & 2018CR8986

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief in these consolidated appeals was originally due September 3, 2019; 

however, the court granted an extension of time to file the brief until November 7, 2019. 

Appellant has filed a motion requesting a further extension of time. 

We grant the motion and order appellant’s attorney, Dean A. Diachin, to file the brief by 

December 2, 2019 (90 days after the original due date). Counsel is advised that no further 

extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed by the date the brief is due, that (1) 

demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the 

efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable 

assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The 

court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
No. 99-9417.

#### Kelly v. Small, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
###### 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.

#### § 414.36 Payment for drugs incident to a physician's service.

Payment for drugs incident to a physician's service is made in accordance with § 405.517 of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.2





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 of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Dorst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ James DorstJames Dorst

Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 15, 2011
#### Edward F. MORGAN, III v. AVONDALE SHIPYARDS.

No. 10620.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1979.

George O’Dowd, O’Dowd & O’Dowd, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

Stephen D. Ridley, Jones, Walker, Waech-ter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, for defendant.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOU-TALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal on exception of no cause of action of his action for damages from dismissal without notice *517from his employment with defendant. The petition alleges that an “Employees Guide” pamphlet constituted his employment contract (in part?), and that it listed “Immediate Discharge Offenses,” and that he was not fired for any of those.

Defendant’s exception of no cause of action, and the trial judge’s explanation of his judgment maintaining it, rely on plaintiff’s failure to allege that he was employed for a definite term and on the accepted legal proposition that an employment for an indefinite term is terminable at will by either employer or employee, *Pechon v. National Corp. Serv.,*1958, 234 La. 397, 100 So.2d 213.

We might agree with plaintiff’s analysis that the right to terminate indefinite employment at will and without notice can be altered by contract. Thus if a contract provided that the employment was terminable without cause only upon two weeks’ notice, a court would presumably enforce such a provision. However, plaintiff’s petition alleges that he was told he was fired for “substandard workmanship”, which constitutes a major offense under the “Guide” punishable (alternatively) by discharge even on first offense. Plaintiff does not allege that he was not guilty of the substandard workmanship and therefore he does not allege that he was improperly discharged, other than by inference that “discharge” as a penalty is different from “immediate discharge.” As we read the “Guide,” however, the “immediate” discharge offenses are those for which there is no alternative to discharge even on the first offense (one might read it “automatic” discharge), while for a “major” offense there is án alternative to discharge on first (but not second) offense. We can find no implied promise not to discharge immediately for a “major offense.”

Plaintiff does not argue that on the occasion of his discharge his work was not substandard. He does not ask for leave to amend to so allege, presumably because he cannot prove such an allegation. We therefore do not amend the judgment to grant leave.1

Affirmed.

1

. We note that, at most, plaintiffs indefinite employment would remain terminable at will, subject only to discharge after reasonable notice rather than immediate discharge. Maximum damages would be wages for the period of reasonable notice.
Order 2012-3-2

Served: September 27, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 2nd day of March, 2012

Essential Air Service at

BAR HARBOR, MAINE

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2011-0185

 

ERRATUM

Summary

By Order 2012-3-2, March 2, 2012, the Department selected Hyannis Air Service Inc., 

operating as Cape Air (Cape Air), and Peninsula Airways, Inc. (PenAir) to jointly provide 

Essential Air Service at Bar Harbor, Maine. In PenAir’s proposal, the airline proposed 

subsidy-free service at Bar Harbor during the peak summer months for a two-year period. 

However, in the Summary section on Page 1 of the selection Order, we incorrectly stated that 

PenAir was selected for a four-year term.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We hereby correct the error made in Order 2012-3-2 to reflect that Peninsula Airways, Inc. 

is selected to provide Essential Air Service at Bar Harbor, Maine, for a two-year term.

2. This docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and
- 2 -

3. The Department will serve a copy of this Order on the Mayor and Airport Manager of Bar 

Harbor; Peninsula Airways Inc., and Hyannis Air Service Inc., operating as Cape Air.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s 

Aviation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) 

days after the date of service of this order.

This Order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available online at

www.regulations.gov
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Earth Day 2022

# 									Earth Day 2022							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 22, 2022

As we celebrate the 52nd annual Earth Day, we are able to reflect on the past year as the period when we gained momentum in our global commitment to foster a healthier planet.

This Administration has made the climate crisis a foreign policy priority by working to scale up global ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, infusing the climate dimension into our broader policy, and significantly increasing investments in climate adaptation and resilience. Thanks to U.S. leadership at COP26 in Glasgow, the world is much closer to keeping a 1.5 degrees Celsius limit on global temperature rise within reach. We also released the United States Long-Term Strategy under the Paris Agreement, which outlines how we will achieve a net-zero economy by 2050, and, in partnership with the EU, we enlisted more than a hundred countries in the fight to reduce methane emissions — regarded as the single most effective near-term strategy to limit warming.  In addition, President Biden committed the United States to the ambitious goal of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, and we hope other countries around the world will adopt similarly ambitious conservation efforts.

The United States is also proud to have played a significant role in reaching consensus at the UN Environment Assembly this year to launch an international negotiating process on a global agreement to end plastic pollution. This effort underscores the importance of addressing pollution while we tackle climate change and other environmental challenges. The Department is also working to support the Administration’s vision for sustainability in Federal Government operations, which puts agencies on the road to net-zero emissions.

As we take stock of our efforts, we remain clear-eyed about the reality that communities across the world are currently suffering due to environmental destruction and damage, including those in Ukraine who have experienced devastating loss of life due to Russia’s invasion. On this anniversary of Earth Day, we continue working towards environmental and diplomatic solutions that foster a healthier planet for all.

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsClimate ChangeCOP26EnvironmentOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Stephen BLAUSTEIN, Appellant, v. Carla BLAUSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 81-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 17, 1982.

Richard A. Bolton of Bolton & Bolton, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Ira M. Krauss of Bauman & Wurtenber-ger, Plantation, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); *Duncan v. Duncan,*379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); and *Davidson v. Davidson,*410 So.2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.