alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

|                                                 |                        |   |                                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Subsidiaries                                         | JurisdictionofIncorporation |   | ApproximatePercentage      ofVoting      SecuritiesOwned |   |
|                                                 |                        |   |                                                     |   |
| Britton      & Koontz Bank, National Association | United      States          |   |                                                     | 100    | % |
|                                                 |                        |   |                                                     |   |   |
| B&K      Title Insurance Agency, Inc.            | Mississippi                 |   |                                                     | 100    | % |
|                                                 |                        |   |                                                     |   |   |
| Britton      & Koontz Statutory Trust # 1        | Mississippi                 |   |                                                     | 100    | % |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6439

PRESTON S. LEWIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANGELA P. DUNBAR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-hc-02169-D)

Submitted: December 21, 2018 Decided: January 7, 2019

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston S. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Preston S. Lewis, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The district court ruled that Lewis’ 

challenge to his career offender designation was not cognizable under § 2241 pursuant to 

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000). However, when it issued its decision, the 

district court did not have the benefit of our recent decisions in Lester v. Flournoy, 909

F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2018), and United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), 

petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Oct. 3, 2018) (No. 18-420). In both cases, 

we held that an inmate may, under certain circumstances, challenge the legality of his 

sentence in a § 2241 petition. Lester, 909 F.3d at 711-12; Wheeler, 886 F.3d at 426-29. 

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the district 

court’s order, and remand this case for further consideration of Lewis’ petition in light of 

Lester and Wheeler. We deny as moot Lewis’ motions to amend. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PEONTE SHAMAR SPENCER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cr - 00012

- HEH

- 1; 3:20

- cv 00471

- HEH )

Submitted : May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Peonte Shamar Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6157 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Peonte Shamar Spencer seeks to appeal the district c ourt’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial 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 standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment o f 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 t he motion 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 Spencer 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 argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6157 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
.

**OFCICR OF**  **‘ niI**  **MTORNLY QLNERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUCTIN**

# Id oomlraioMr8.’ I iail to tlna My law

that ruthorLo8

al8 oxpon(llturo

outor tho 8 o aa &Br ll p ,

01 My l t h or r t md f orl o o ua t~ C o a d88l a n or

a n dt he

Fum r M5088ln * 1 0 I l ~Oll C.î 

### pndor tho 

### iaotr 8tato6 in your lottor, tha ark"wu to bo 

### urplo7.d br l County Corn-- 

### riulonu and the Oount &ont togothor, ana tho *otanogrephor

### l 10*- wa8 to work r0r 

### i 0th of tho rboro untlonod offioialr. Bootlon **S, Art1010**  **8 of**  

### tho 

### Ton8 **OO#l8titutiOn pro**  **roribo8** the BR&UR tat0 Of tUO8 iOr BOWER JW 808, iU road8 **~4 briG@S,**  iOr j~riO8 ad iOr pU5MMt G 

### provoaeultr, ro8 

### 0 l otl?o4. 

# ThO

-07 l i& irU -X08 1 OVi.d lA d 00 1 . 

### loo od for oaoh ot 8ho &boro l 

### mMr8t.6 pqO8e8 UO 

### OoMti**tutiOM1 fUBd8.** 

**.** 

### Tho Qomml8olonor8~Court bar no authorlty to tramrer 

### moaoy frw oao to udthor oon8tltutlorul hand, or 

### to oxpond 

## taxmollor

n18od 

## 0000M1b1~

ror anothor puriat0 VP080 oi 

### tho mT181Ol.l i8 

## to lbit tho 

## aunt of tax08 

### tht?t any bo raisd for 

### thee. 90Veral **pUl ’**  **~OSe8,**

mo 

## ~llonl road uld brlQo edad 18 a 00fwituti0aai **iund ud**  

### tho **-nOr Of**  **8Uti OO!l8titUtiOnd**  **fund** n\ut **b QpliOd**  

### to that 

### ptr%ioularpurporo for 

### rhloh it war nirod 

### and no other. Thuoforo, 

### It lr our 

### opinion tht 

### no part 

### of tha ralary of tho 

### a~t~o@apiio~olork'k" can logally be 

### plb out OS 

### tho road and 

### brluo fund for '8orrloor 

### poriormd ior tho County 

### Agat.

I/ 8OTOrt 6.~ fOpk0 m 8/ hl’dOl1 rilliU8 Aotiw Al’TOR8XT UB?fERAL OF 

### TiCUS &sirtant

**AiTROVltD**

### 0i';HIOB

COUMI'I'TBI:

BY COC CKAIWAH
#### § 137.32 Is a compact required to participate in self-governance?

Yes, Tribes must have a compact in order to participate in self-governance.
#### Ex Parte Chester TICE. (Re: Chester TICE, alias v. STATE of Alabama).

79-698.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 15, 1980.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAdaptive Performance Seeking Control Using Fuzzy Model Reference Learning Control and Positive Gradient ControlPerformance Seeking Control attempts to find the operating condition that will generate optimal performance and control the plant at that operating condition. In this paper a nonlinear multivariable Adaptive Performance Seeking Control (APSC) methodology will be developed and it will be demonstrated on a nonlinear system. The APSC is comprised of the Positive Gradient Control (PGC) and the Fuzzy Model Reference Learning Control (FMRLC). The PGC computes the positive gradients of the desired performance function with respect to the control inputs in order to drive the plant set points to the operating point that will produce optimal performance. The PGC approach will be derived in this paper. The feedback control of the plant is performed by the FMRLC. For the FMRLC, the conventional fuzzy model reference learning control methodology is utilized, with guidelines generated here for the effective tuning of the FMRLC controller.Document ID19970025512Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsKopasakis, George*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-10740NASA-TM-107455NAS 1.15:107455AIAA Paper 97-3191Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint PropulsionLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 6, 1997End Date: July 9, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society for Electrical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N25009Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 538-06-ARDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970025512.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement from the United States, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom on Spain Joining the Blue Dot Network

# 									Joint Statement from the United States, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom on Spain Joining the Blue Dot Network							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 16, 2023

The text of the following statement was released by the Government of the United States of America, the Government of Japan, the Government of Australia, and the Government of the United Kingdom on the occasion of Spain joining the Blue Dot Network Steering Committee.

*Begin Text*

The United States, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom welcome Spain joining the Steering Committee of the Blue Dot Network.

Blue Dot Network certification ensures infrastructure meets the fiscal, social, environmental, and governance standards that benefit all users and stakeholders in our respective societies. Pilot projects using Blue Dot Network criteria have demonstrated the certification process is an effective means to ensure the roads, bridges, information networks, and energy grids we use deliver local economic development and adhere to international standards and best practices.

We are excited to welcome more partners to the future of sustainable and inclusive infrastructure development that the Blue Dot Network represents.  When our roads, bridges, electrical grids, communications networks, and other infrastructure projects are developed according to recognized standards, we all benefit.

To learn more about the Blue Dot Network, visit the Blue Dot Network website.

*End text*

Tags

AustraliaBureau of Economic and Business AffairsJapanOffice of the SpokespersonSpainUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
§ 417.584 Payment to HMOs or CMPs with risk contracts. Except in the circumstances specified in § 417.440(d) for inpatient hospital care, and as provided in § 417.585 for hospice care, CMS makes payment for covered services only to the HMO or CMP. ( a ) *Principle of payment.* CMS makes monthly advance payments equivalent to the HMO's or CMP's per capita rate of payment for each beneficiary who is registered in CMS records as a Medicare enrollee of the HMO or CMP.
( b ) *Determination of rate.* ( 1 ) The annual per capita rate of payment for each class of Medicare enrollees is equal to 95 percent of the AAPCC (as determined under the provisions of § 417.588) for that class of Medicare enrollees.
( 2 ) CMS furnishes each HMO or CMP with its per capita rate of payment for each class of Medicare enrollees not later than 90 days before the beginning of the HMO's or CMP's contract period.
( c ) *Adjustments to payments.* If the actual number of Medicare enrollees differs from the estimated number on which the amount of advance monthly payment was based, CMS adjusts subsequent monthly payments to take account of the difference.
( d ) *Reduction of payments.* If an HMO or CMP requests a reduction in its monthly payment in accordance with § 417.592(b)(2), CMS reduces the amount of payment by the appropriate amount.
( e ) *Determination of rate for calendar year 1998.* For calendar year 1998, HMOs or CMPs with risk contracts will be paid in accordance with principles contained in subpart F of part 422 of this chapter.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985; 50 FR 20570, May 17, 1985, as amended at 52 FR 8901, Mar. 20, 1987; 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 46232, Sept. 6, 1995; 63 FR 35067, June 26, 1998]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.302 Purposes directly related to State plan administration. Purposes directly related to plan administration include— ( a ) Establishing eligibility;
( b ) Determining the amount of medical assistance;
( c ) Providing services for beneficiaries; and
( d ) Conducting or assisting an investigation, prosecution, or civil or criminal proceeding related to the administration of the plan.
§ 456.653 Acceptable reasons for not meeting requirements for annual on-site review. The Administrator will find an agency's showing satisfactory, even if it failed to meet the annual review requirements of § 456.652(a)(4), if— ( a ) The agency demonstrates that— ( 1 ) It completed reviews by the end of the quarter in at least 98 percent of all facilities requiring review by the end of the quarter;
( 2 ) It completed reviews by the end of the quarter in all facilities with 200 or more certified Medicaid beds requiring review by the end of the quarter; and
( 3 ) With respect to all unreviewed facilities, the agency exercised good faith and due diligence by attempting to review those facilities and would have succeeded but for events beyond its control which it could not have reasonably anticipated; or
( b ) The agency demonstrates that it failed to meet the standard in paragraph (a) (1) and (2) of this section by the close of the quarter for technical reasons, but met the standard within 30 days after the close of the quarter. Technical reasons are circumstances within the agency's control.
( c ) Facilities that are reviewed under paragraph (b) of this section, after the quarter in which they were due for review, retain their original anniversary quarter due date for purposes of subsequent reviews.
#### § 441.400 Basis and purpose.

This subpart implements section 1905(a)(24) of the Act, which adds community supported living arrangements services to the list of services that States may provide as medical assistance under title XIX (to the extent and as defined in section 1930 of the Act), and section 1930(h)(1)(B) of the Act, which specifies minimum protection requirements that a State which provides community supported living arrangements services as an optional Medicaid service to developmentally disabled individuals must meet to ensure the health, safety and welfare of those individuals.
#### John H. HARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 80-1128, 80-1151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 24, 1981.

*1108James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds, so we affirm. Appellant was charged with escape. There is a question as to the date of his apprehension, but even if we accept his view, speedy trial time had not run. Since appellant was a prisoner when he escaped, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(b)(1) applies, *Travis v. State,*364 So.2d 870, 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and trial must commence within one year from the date of his recapture or within 180 days of his demand for speedy trial. Neither period had run at the time appellant entered his plea.

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.58

                              AMENDMENT # 1 TO THE

                         METLIFE AUXILIARY PENSION PLAN
               (As amended and restated effective January 1, 2008)

     The MetLife Auxiliary Pension Plan is hereby amended, effective October 1,
2008, as follows:

1. Part I, Article 2, Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the
following after subsection (d):

"(e) holds the title of Chief Auditor, Treasurer, Tax Director, Corporate
Secretary or Chief Actuary of the Company or is subject to the Company's
mandatory retirement policy."

The left-justified language that followed subsection (d) prior to this amendment
(and that now appears after new subsection (e) as added by this amendment), will
be maintained without change

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be adopted in
its name and behalf this 24th day of October, 2008, by its officer thereunto
duly authorized.

                                        METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


                                        By: /s/ Margery Brittain
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Margery Brittain, Plan Administrator


ATTEST:


/s/ Bonita Haskins
-------------------------------------


                                        1
§ 424.122 Conditions for payment for emergency inpatient hospital services. Medicare Part A pays for emergency inpatient hospital services furnished by a foreign hospital if the following conditions are met: ( a ) At the time of the emergency that required the inpatient hospital services, the beneficiary was— ( 1 ) In the United States; or
( 2 ) In Canada traveling between Alaska and another State without unreasonable delay and by the most direct route.
( b ) The foreign hospital was closer to, or more accessible from, the site of the emergency than the nearest United States hospital equipped to deal with, and available to treat, the individual's illness or injury.
( c ) The conditions for payment for emergency services set forth in § 424.103 are met.
( d ) The hospital is a hospital as defined in § 424.101, and is licensed, or approved as meeting the conditions for licensing, by the appropriate agency of the country in which it is located.
( e ) The determination of whether the hospital was more accessible is made in accordance with § 424.106.
§ 456.136 Notification of adverse decision. The UR plan must provide that written notice of any adverse final decision on the need for continued stay under § 456.135 (f) through (h) is sent to— ( a ) The hospital administrator;
( b ) The attending physician;
( c ) The Medicaid agency;
( d ) The beneficiary; and
( e ) If possible, the next of kin or sponsor.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3261

To provide for annual payments from the surplus funds of the Federal

Reserve System to cover the interest on obligations issued by the Financing Corporation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 17, 1996

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. CARDIN, Mr.

KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. NEAL of

Massachusetts, Mr. POMEROY, and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial

Services

A BILL

To provide for annual payments from the surplus funds

of the Federal Reserve System to cover the interest

on obligations issued by the Financing Corporation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve Sur5 plus Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3261 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUS FUNDS

2 TO MEET FICO CARRYING COSTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a) of the Federal Re4 serve Act (12 U.S.C. 289) is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(4) FICO PAYMENTS.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During the period be8 ginning on the date of the enactment of the

9 Federal Reserve Surplus Act of 1996 and end10 ing on the date the Financing Corporation

11 ceases to have any obligations outstanding

12 under section 21(e) of the Federal Home Loan

13 Bank Act, the Board shall annually transfer (in

14 addition to the transfers of funds required

15 under paragraph (3)) to the Financing Cor16 poration, from amounts in the surplus funds of

17 the Federal reserve banks, an amount equal to

18 $3,000,000,000 divided by the number of cal19 endar years any portion of which falls within

20 such period for use in accordance with section

21 21(f)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.

22 ‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—The Board shall an23 nually determine, on the basis of such factors

24 as the Board considers appropriate, the manner

25 in which the amount of the obligation of the

26 Board under subparagraph (A) shall be allo-
3

•HR 3261 IH

1 cated among the surplus funds of the Federal

2 reserve banks.’’.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1) of

4 section 21(f) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12

5 U.S.C. 1441(f)) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUS.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts transferred

8 to the Financing Corporation by the Board of

9 Governors of the Federal Reserve System from

10 the surplus funds of the Federal reserve banks

11 in accordance with section 7(a)(4) of the Fed12 eral Reserve Act.

13 ‘‘(B) TREATMENT IN CASE OF BANK IN14 SURANCE FUND MEMBER ASSESSMENTS.—To

15 the extent Bank Insurance Fund members (as

16 defined in section 7(l)(4) of the Federal Deposit

17 Insurance Act) are subject to any assessments

18 under this subsection, the total amount of such

19 assessments which, but for this subparagraph,

20 would be imposed on all such members for any

21 year shall be reduced by the transferred amount

22 referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to

23 such year.’’.

Æ