alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 430.1 Scope of subchapter C.

The regulations in subchapter C set forth State plan requirements, standards, procedures, and conditions for obtaining Federal financial participation (FFP). Each part (or subpart of section) in the subchapter describes the specific statutory basis for the regulation. However, where the basis is the Secretary's general authority to issue regulations for any program under the Act (section 1102 of the Act), or his general authority to prescribe State plan requirements needed for proper and efficient administration of the plan (section 1902(a)(4)), those statutory provisions are simply cited without further description.
#### Daniel EPSTEIN, Appellant, v. Marion T. EPSTEIN, Appellee.

Nos. 79-1394, 79-1484 and 79-1609.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 29, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1980.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Miami, William Sullivan, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Rash, Katzen & Kay and H. Stephen Rash, South Miami, for appellee.

*1201Before HUBBART, SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed and the post-judgment order taxing costs and attorneys fees, also under review, is reversed upon a holding that: (a) the award of the subject installments due the husband through the sale of the Dairy Queen franchise and the award of the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home, although admittedly on the high side, are nonetheless supported by substantial competent evidence in this record as sustainable lump sum alimony awards to the wife which we have no authority to set aside; *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); (b) the award of attorneys fees and costs is not supported by substantial competent evidence as on this record the wife is in a significantly superior financial position, when compared to the husband, to pay her attorneys fees and costs given the highly favorable financial result she has achieved by the final judgment herein. *Hill v. Hill,*376 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *Bucci v. Bucci,*350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.65 Effective date and duration of State plans and plan amendments. ( a ) *Effective date in general.* Except as otherwise limited by this section— ( 1 ) A State plan or plan amendment takes effect on the day specified in the plan or plan amendment, but no earlier than October 1, 1997.
( 2 ) The effective date may be no earlier than the date on which the State begins to incur costs to implement its State plan or plan amendment.
( 3 ) A State plan amendment that takes effect prior to submission of the amendment to CMS may remain in effect only until the end of the State fiscal year in which the State makes it effective, or, if later, the end of the 90-day period following the date on which the State makes it effective, unless the State submits the amendment to CMS for approval before the end of that State fiscal year or that 90-day period.
( b ) *Amendments relating to eligibility or benefits.* A State plan amendment that eliminates or restricts eligibility or benefits may not be in effect for longer than a 60-day period, unless the amendment is submitted to CMS before the end of that 60-day period. The amendment may not take effect unless— ( 1 ) The State certifies that it has provided prior public notice of the proposed change in a form and manner provided under applicable State law; and
( 2 ) The public notice was published before the requested effective date of the change.
( c ) *Amendments relating to cost sharing.* A State plan amendment that implements cost-sharing charges, increases existing cost-sharing charges, or increases the cumulative cost-sharing maximum as set forth at § 457.560 is considered an amendment that restricts benefits and must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Amendments relating to enrollment procedures.* A State plan amendment that institutes or extends the use of waiting lists, enrollment caps or closed enrollment periods is considered an amendment that restricts eligibility and must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
( e ) *Amendments relating to the source of State funding.* A State plan amendment that changes the source of the State share of funding can take effect no earlier than the date of submission of the amendment.
( f ) *Continued approval.* An approved State plan continues in effect unless— ( 1 ) The State adopts a new plan by obtaining approval under § 457.60 of an amendment to the State plan;
( 2 ) Withdraws its plan in accordance with § 457.170(b); or
( 3 ) The Secretary finds substantial noncompliance of the plan with the requirements of the statute or regulations.
[66 FR 2670, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 89 FR 22873, Apr. 2, 2024]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Lebanon

# 									Joint Statement on Lebanon							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

July 17, 2023

*The text of the following joint statement was released by the Governments of Egypt, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.*

*Begin Text:*

Today, representatives from Egypt, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States met to discuss the urgent need for Lebanon’s leadership to expedite presidential elections and implement imperative economic reforms in order to fulfill their responsibilities to their citizens. Rescuing the economy and securing a more prosperous future for the Lebanese people rests on their actions.

While our five countries underscored our commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, we noted with concern that nearly nine months after the end of President Michel Aoun’s term, Lebanon’s political leaders have yet to elect a successor. It is crucial for Lebanese Members of Parliament to abide by their constitutional responsibility and proceed with the election of a president. We discussed concrete options with respect to implementing measures against those who are blocking progress on this front.

In order to meet the aspirations of the Lebanese people and address their pressing needs, it is imperative that Lebanon elects a president who embodies integrity, unites the nation, puts the interests of the country first, prioritizes the well-being of its citizens, and forms a broad and inclusive coalition to implement essential economic reforms, particularly those recommended by the International Monetary Fund. Our countries are willing to work jointly with Lebanon to support the implementation of these reform measures, which are invaluable to the country’s future prosperity, stability, and security.

We underscore the desperate need for judicial reform and implementation of the rule of law, especially in regard to the 2020 Port of Beirut explosion investigation.

We strongly urge Lebanese leaders and parties to take immediate action to overcome the current political impasse.

We emphasize the importance of the Lebanese government’s implementation of the related UN Security Council Resolutions, as well as other relevant international agreements and resolutions, including those issued by the Arab League, and its commitment to the National Accord Agreement, which enables the preservation of national unity and civil justice in Lebanon.

Egypt, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States remain steadfast in their support for Lebanon and look forward to continued coordination in the interest of its people.

*End text.*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsLebanonOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 417.500 Intermediate sanctions for and civil monetary penalties against HMOs and CMPs. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the rights, procedures, and requirements related to intermediate sanctions and civil money penalties set forth in part 422 subparts O and T of this chapter also apply to Medicare contracts with HMOs or CMPs under sections 1876 of the Act.
( b ) In applying paragraph (a) of this section, references to part 422 of this chapter must be read as references to this part and references to MA organizations must be read as references to HMOs or CMPs.
( c ) In applying paragraph (a) of this section, the amounts of civil money penalties that can be imposed are governed by section 1876(i)(6)(B) and (C) of the Act, not by the provisions in part 422 of this chapter.
[75 FR 19803, Apr. 15, 2010]
#### John P. McNAMARA, Petitioner, v. Louie WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-1096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas Corpus denied.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Greenland Prime Minister Egede and Foreign Minister Motzfeldt

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Greenland Prime Minister Egede and Foreign Minister Motzfeldt							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

June 16, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman met today with Greenland Prime Minister Múte B. Egede and Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt in Washington, D.C.  Deputy Secretary Sherman thanked Prime Minister Egede and Foreign Minister Motzfeldt for Greenland’s support for sanctions related to Putin’s brutal war of choice on Ukraine.  The three also highlighted the United States and Greenland’s strong cooperation on critical minerals, trade, and investment to strengthen joint prosperity and sustainable development in the Arctic during the global green energy transition.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDenmarkDeputy Secretary of StateGreenlandOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
§ 436.600 Scope. This subpart prescribes: ( a ) General financial requirements and options for determining the eligibility of both categorically needy and medically needy individuals specified in subparts B, C, and D of this part. Subparts H and I of this part prescribe additional financial requirements.
( b ) [Reserved]
[58 FR 4936, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 43053, Aug. 22, 1994]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Violence in the North of Kosovo

# 									Joint Statement on Violence in the North of Kosovo							

Press Statement

Office of the Spokesperson

May 26, 2023

*The following is the text of a joint statement by the United States, France, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom.*

*Begin text:*

We condemn Kosovo’s decision to force access to municipal buildings in northern Kosovo despite our call for restraint. We call on Kosovo’s authorities to immediately step back and de-escalate, and to closely coordinate with EULEX and KFOR.

We condemn attacks on EULEX in Zvecan.

We are concerned by Serbia’s decision to raise the level of readiness of its Armed Forces at the border with Kosovo and call all parties for maximum restraint, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric.

*End text.*

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsKosovoOffice of the SpokespersonSerbia

Back to Top
§ 456.609 Determinations by team. The team must determine in its inspection whether— ( a ) The services available in the facility are adequate to— ( 1 ) Meet the health needs of each beneficiary, and the rehabilitative and social needs of each beneficiary in an ICF; and
( 2 ) Promote his maximum physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning.
( b ) It is necessary and desirable for the beneficiary to remain in the facility;
( c ) It is feasible to meet the beneficiary's health needs and, in an ICF, the beneficiary's rehabilitative needs, through alternative institutional or noninstitutional services; and
( d ) Each beneficiary under age 21 in a psychiatric facility and each beneficiary in an institution for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities or persons with related conditions is receiving active treatment as defined in § 441.154 of this subchapter.
HomeElizabeth Slaughter

# 									Elizabeth Slaughter							

## Elizabeth Slaughter

#### Comptroller

Elizabeth (Beth) Slaughter is the Comptroller for the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO). Ms. Slaughter manages all facets of OBO’s budget and financial planning, as well as policy and strategic planning. She oversees more than $13 billion in financial resources, including OBO’s multi-billion dollar construction and maintenance budgets; provides internal budgeting, accounting, and financial management services for all OBO programs; and maintains financial reporting and control processes.

Ms. Slaughter was the Director of OBO’s Office of Strategic Planning (2017–2021), where she managed the priorities for the Department’s flagship Real Property Program, which provides $2.6 billion for the acquisition, design, construction, restoration, and maintenance of the Department’s global diplomatic facilities. She was also responsible for the Department’s real property inventory reporting, which includes more than 25,000 assets in 290 locations.

Ms. Slaughter has focused her 25-year career in the federal and private sectors on successfully justifying and managing resources in support of mission priorities. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Earlham College and a Masters in Governmental Accounting from Rutgers Business School and holds the Certified Government Financial Manager designation.

Back to Top
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6503

MATTHEW AARON SAFRIT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TODD ISHEE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 3:23

- cv - 00166

- MR )

Submitted : May 30, 2024 Decided: June 17, 2024

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Matthew A. Safrit , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6503 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Matthew Aaron Safrit seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Safrit has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6503 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000266

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

NAM KI HOON, YONG CHANG HA, BERNARD TABLADILLO, PAUL PESTILLI,

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellees, v.

JH WAIPAHU, LLC, domestic limited liability company; 

HC DRIVE-IN INC., a domestic profit corporation,

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Appellants; 

JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; 

DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; 

and DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC171000924)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

(By: Chan, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of

Appeal (Stipulation), filed September 11, 2020, by DefendantsCounterclaim Plaintiffs/Appellants JH Waipahu, LLC, and HC DriveIn Inc., the papers in support, and the record, it appears that

(1) the appeal has been docketed; (2) the parties stipulate to

dismiss the appeal and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs;

(3) the Stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000266

16-SEP-2020

08:47 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) dismissal is authorized

by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 16, 2020.

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Antonio MELENDEZ v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 66453.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Antonio Melendez applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Ouachita. Number unknown.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J.,

would transfer to district court for consideration- of a contention of relator here, not yet raised in the district court.
§ 424.16 Timing of certification for individual admitted to a hospital before entitlement to Medicare benefits. ( a ) *Basic rule.* If an indivdual is admitted to a hospital before becoming entitled to Medicare benefits (for instance, before attaining age 65), the day of entitlement (instead of the day of admission) is the starting point for the time limits specified in subpart B of this part for certification and recertification.
( b ) *Example. (Hospital that is not a psychiatric hospital and is not subject to PPS).* For a patient who is admitted on August 15 and becomes entitled on September 1— ( 1 ) The certification is required no later than September 12;
( 2 ) The first recertification is required no later than September 18; and
( 3 ) Subsequent recertifications are required at least every 30 days after September 18.
[53 FR 6635, Mar. 2, 1988; 53 FR 12945, Apr. 20, 1988, as amended at 78 FR 50970, Aug. 19, 2013]
#### § 436.900 Scope.

This subpart sets forth requirements for processing applications, determining eligibility, and furnishing Medicaid.
§ 423.2126 Case remanded by the Council. ( a ) *When the Council may remand a case to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator.* ( 1 ) The Council may remand a case in which additional evidence is needed or additional action by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator is required. The Council will designate in its remand order whether the ALJ or attorney adjudicator will issue a decision or a recommended decision on remand.
( 2 ) *Action by ALJ or attorney adjudicator on remand.* The ALJ or attorney adjudicator will take any action that is ordered by the Council and may take any additional action that is not inconsistent with the Council's remand order.
( 3 ) *Notice when case is returned with a recommended decision.* When the ALJ or attorney adjudicator sends a case to the Council with a recommended decision, a notice is mailed to the enrollee at his or her last known address. The notice tells the enrollee that the case was sent to the Council, explains the rules for filing briefs or other written statements with the Council, and includes a copy of the recommended decision.
( 4 ) *Filing briefs with the Council when ALJ or attorney adjudicator issues recommended decision.* ( i ) An enrollee may file with the Council briefs or other written statements about the facts and law relevant to the case within 20 calendar days of the date on the recommended decision or with the request for review for expedited appeals. An enrollee may ask the Council for additional time to file a brief or written statement. The Council will extend this period, as appropriate, if the enrollee shows that he or she has good cause for requesting the extension.
( ii ) All other rules for filing briefs with and obtaining evidence from the Council follow the procedures explained in this subpart.
( 5 ) *Procedures before the Council.* ( i ) The Council, after receiving a recommended decision, will conduct proceedings and issue its decision or dismissal according to the procedures explained in this subpart.
( ii ) If the Council determines that more evidence is required, it may again remand the case to an ALJ or attorney adjudicator for further inquiry into the issues, rehearing if applicable, receipt of evidence, and another decision or recommended decision. However, if the Council decides that it can get the additional evidence more quickly, it will take appropriate action.
( b ) *When the Council must remand a case to the Part D IRE.* The Council will remand a case to the appropriate Part D IRE if the Council determines that the enrollee wishes evidence on his or her change in condition after the coverage determination or at-risk determination to be considered in the appeal.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017; 83 FR 16754, Apr. 16, 2018]
#### § 435.1006 Beneficiaries of optional State supplements only.

FFP is available in expenditures for services provided to individuals receiving optional State supplements but not receiving SSI, if their income before deductions, as determined by SSI budget methodology, does not exceed 300 percent of the SSI benefit amount payable under section 1611(b)(1) of the Act to an individual who has no income and resources.

[45 FR 24887, Apr. 11, 1980]
Exhibit 32.1


          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 Veridicom International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to 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; 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/ Paul Mann
      --------------------------
      Paul Mann
      President (Principal Executive Officer)




      May 2, 2006


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Veridicom International, Inc. and will be retained by Veridicom
International,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### § 426.546 Record of hearing.

The Board must ensure that all hearings are open to the public and are electronically, mechanically, or stenographically reported. Except for privileged information and proprietary data that are filed under seal, all evidence upon which the Board relies for decision must be admitted into the public record. All medical reports, exhibits, and any other pertinent document, either in whole or in material part, must be offered, marked for identification, and retained in the case record.