alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jan JACOBSON, Petitioner, v. Carl M. THIESSEN et al., Respondents.

No. 75-621.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 15, 1975.

*26Roland F. Cribbs, Tampa, for petitioner.

Andrew D. Argintar, Asst. County Atty., and Stella Ferguson Thayer, of Macfar-lane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for respondents.

SCHEB, Judge.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Department of Transportation entered April 11, 1975, based upon a hearing held on September 25, 1974, under the provisions of Ch. 330, Fla.Stat. (1973).

Petitioner filed his petition in this court pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 120.68, of the new Administrative Procedure Act, effective January 1, 1975, which provides for judicial review of an agency’s decision by petition in the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where the party resides. Review proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules. Fla.Stat. § 120.72(2) also effective January 1, 1975, however, provides :

> All administrative adjudicative proceedings begun prior to January 1, 1975, shall be continued to a conclusion under the provisions of the Florida Statutes, 1973, except that administrative adjudicatory proceedings which have not progressed to the stage of a hearing may, with the consent of all parties and the agency conducting the proceeding, be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this act as nearly as is feasible.

Since the adjudicatory proceedings *sub judice*were heard on September 25, 1974, jurisdiction for review of the order complained of is governed by Florida Statutes, 1973.

Although the former Administrative Procedure Act provided for review by certiorari in the District Court of Appeal, *see*Fla.Stat. § 120.31 (1973), we have held that this section must yield to a specific mode of review when provided in the statutes governing a particular agency. *Arvida Corp. v. Sarasota,*Fla.App.2d 1968, 213 So.2d 756; *Charbonier v. Wynne,*Fla.App.2d 1973, 282 So.2d 171.

There is a specific method of review provided for orders of the Department of Transportation under Ch. 330. Fla.Stat. § 330.32 (1973) provides in part:

> Any person aggrieved by an order of the division or by the grant, denial or revocation of any approval, license or certificate may have the action of the division *27reviewed by the appropriate circuit court upon filing a petition for a writ of cer-tiorari within the time and in the manner provided by the Florida Appellate Rules.

Therefore, jurisdiction for the review being sought is properly in the Circuit Court, as provided by the Florida Statutes, 1973, which govern this proceeding.

Our jurisdiction having been invoked improvidently, this cause is transferred to the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, in accordance with F.A.R. 2.1, Subd. a(S)(d).

McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         373,276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,116
<PP&E>                                       2,494,193
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,745,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,245,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,245,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,245,374
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,770
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   186,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Dennis DeMAGGIO, Appellant, v. BRASSERIE RESTAURANT and Coconut Grove Hotel, Appellees.

No. 75-503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 14, 1975.

*50G. E. Petrie, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Nie-moeller & Flynn, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

This is an appeal by Dennis DeMaggio, plaintiff in the trial court, from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, Brasserie Restaurant and Coconut Grove Hotel. The action arose from an altercation on the defendants’ premises the result of which was that DeMaggio, a patron, was physically injured by another patron.

Since the judgment appealed is an adverse summary final judgment, the appellant is entitled to have the record reviewed in the light most favorable to him, with all reasonable inferences of fact and intendments of testimony being drawn in his behalf. *Holl v. Talcott,*Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; *Visingardi v. Tirone,*Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 601. It is the burden of the movant for summary judgment to show conclusively the non-existence of a genuine material fact. Where the existence of such an issue appears in the record, the cause must be referred for a determination of questions of fact and credibility. *Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.,*Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 898; *Williams v. Florida Realty and Management Co.,*Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 176. On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the defendants sustained the burden of proving the non-existence of genuine triable issues. Accordingly, the summary final judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
HomeFunding Opportunity Announcements...FY 2024 Request for Concept Notes Benefiting Afghan Refugees and Returnees in Afghanistan

# 									FY 2024 Request for Concept Notes Benefiting Afghan Refugees and Returnees in Afghanistan							

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

December 4, 2023

**Request for Concept Notes Number:**SFOP0010143**Assistance Listing (CFDA) number:**19.523 – Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for South Asia**Announcement issuance date:**Monday, December 4, 2023**Concept note application submission deadline:**Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. (EST) **Concept Notes submitted after this deadline will not be considered.**

download the announcement

Tags

AfghanistanBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBureau of South and Central Asian Affairs

Back to Top
#### Donaldo C. MICHELLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-395.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
§ 430.74 Issues at hearing. The list of issues specified in the notice of hearing may be augmented or reduced as provided in this section. ( a ) *Additional issues.* ( 1 ) Before a hearing under § 430.35, the Administrator may send written notice to the State listing additional issues to be considered at the hearing. That notice is published in the Federal Register.
( 2 ) If the notice of additional issues is furnished to the State less than 20 days before the scheduled hearing date, postponement is granted if requested by the State or any other party. The new date may be 20 days after the date of the notice, or a later date agreed to by the presiding officer.
( b ) *New or modified issues.* If, as a result of negotiations between CMS and the State, the submittal of plan amendment, a change in the State program, or other actions by the State, any issue is resolved in whole or in part, but new or modified issues are presented, as specified by the presiding officer, the hearing proceeds on the new or modified issues.
( c ) *Issues removed from consideration* — ( 1 ) *Basis for removal.* If at any time before, during, or after the hearing, the presiding officer finds that the State has come into compliance with Federal requirements on any issue or part of an issue, he or she removes the appropriate issue or part of an issue from consideration. If all issues are removed, the hearing is terminated.
( 2 ) *Notice to parties.* Before removing any issue or part of an issue from consideration, the presiding officer provides all parties other than CMS and the State with— ( i ) A statement of the intent to remove and the reasons for removal; and
( ii ) A copy of the proposed State plan provision on which CMS and the State have agreed.
( 3 ) *Opportunity for written comment.* The notified parties have 15 days to submit, for consideration by the presiding officer, and for the record, their views as to, or any information bearing upon, the merits of the proposed plan provision and the merits of the reasons for removing the issue from consideration.
( d ) *Remaining issues.* The issues considered at the hearing are limited to those issues of which the State is notified as provided in § 430.70 and paragraph (a) of this section, and new or modified issues described in paragraph (b) of this section. They do not include issues or parts of issues removed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...GEC Releases Special Report: More than a Century of Antisemitism:  How Successive Occupants of the Kremlin Have Used Antisemitism to Spread Disinformation and Propaganda

# 									GEC Releases Special Report: More than a Century of Antisemitism:  How Successive Occupants of the Kremlin Have Used Antisemitism to Spread Disinformation and Propaganda							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

January 26, 2024

Today, the U.S. Department of State’s Global Engagement Center released a new report detailing the ways in which the Tsarist and Soviet denizens of the Kremlin — and now Vladimir Putin and his regime — have for over a century exploited antisemitism in disinformation and propaganda campaigns designed to discredit, divide, and weaken perceived adversaries at home and abroad. For example, in an attempt to justify Russia’s unjustifiable full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin falsely portrays Ukraine and its supporters as Nazis, demonizes the Jewish identity of Ukraine’s president, attacks Jews as “the worst Nazis,” and engages in reprehensible Holocaust distortion.

Today’s Kremlin builds upon a long and ugly history of exploiting antisemitism, dating back to the Tsarist Security Service’s creation and dissemination of the notorious forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Soviet Union then expanded on these tactics by propagating antisemitic lies to cement totalitarian control. This report details these historical attempts to weaponize antisemitism and exposes how the contemporary Kremlin’s intelligence services and mouthpieces spread antisemitic propaganda and disinformation across the globe to further its malign agenda.

Read the full report here: https://www.state.gov/more-than-a-century-of-antisemitism-how-successive-occupants-of-the-kremlin-have-used-antisemitism/.

For questions, please reach out to the Global Engagement Center at GECMediaContacts@State.gov.

Tags

AntisemitismBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDisinformationGlobal Engagement CenterOffice of the SpokespersonRussia

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

t1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151016

SPARTAN STORES, INC. and FAMILY FARE,

LLC,

Petitioners-Appellees,

v SC: 151016

COA: 314669

Michigan Tax Tribunal:

00-397618

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,

Respondent-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. This denial is without 

prejudice to the ability of the City of Grand Rapids to raise a challenge, on remand, to 

whether the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction was timely invoked, where Family Fare, LLC did 

not file the initial petition, but was added as copetitioner at a later date.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3193 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3193

 To recognize the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, located in 
   Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, and to direct the 
  Secretary of the Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a 
                           national memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 1996

  Ms. Pelosi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To recognize the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, located in 
   Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, and to direct the 
  Secretary of the Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a 
                           national memorial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``AIDS Memorial Grove Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION AND DESIGNATION OF THE AIDS MEMORIAL GROVE AS 
              NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

    (a) Recognition of Significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove.--The 
Congress hereby recognizes the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, 
located in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, as a 
memorial--
            (1) dedicated to individuals who have died as a result of 
        acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and
            (2) in support of individuals who are living with acquired 
        immune deficiency syndrome and their loved ones and caregivers.
    (b) Designation as National Memorial.--Not later than 90 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a national memorial.
                                 <all>
```
HomeFunding Opportunity Announcements...FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Zambia and South Africa

# 											FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Zambia and South Africa									

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

March 6, 2024

**Funding Opportunity Number:**DFOP0009165 **Assistance Listings (CFDA) number:**19.517 – Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa **Announcement issuance date:**Monday, March 4, 2024 **Announcement type:**Cooperative Agreement **Proposal application submission deadline:**Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. (11:59:59) EDT. **Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered. **

Download Announcement							 [426 KB]

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationRefugeesSouth AfricaZambia

Back to Top
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David PEREZ et al., Appellees.

Nos. 79-165, 79-169, 79-170, 79-181 and 79-256.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 1980.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles Corees, Jr., Eula Tuttle Mason, William I. Munsey, Jr., Robert J. Landry, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, and Bruce Hinshel-wood, Asst. State’s Atty., Orlando, for appellant.

Alan S. Ross of Weiner, Robbins, Tunkey & Ross, P. A., Miami, for appellees Comi-era, David Perez, and Capestany.

*924William Plowman, Tampa, for appellee Chambrot.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee Campaz.

Raymond R. Pines, Tampa, for appellee Hector Rodriquez.

Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for appellees Avila, Serrano, Luis Perez, Escorcia, and Cortez.

Lawrence Scott, Tampa, for appellees Cardosa, Camejo, and Romero.

DANAHY, Judge.

The state appeals from orders of dismissal entered by the trial judge on motions to dismiss filed by all defendants. The trial court granted the motions after finding that each defendant had been prejudiced by the state’s failure to comply with discovery. But the state contends in part that certain defendants are not able to show prejudice from the state’s violation of the discovery rules because those defendants have filed waivers of the speedy trial time. We agree with the state’s contentions.

Five of the defendants, Antonio Avila, Carlos Serrano, Luis Perez, Jorge Luis Escorcia and Alberto Cortez, filed waivers of speedy trial. Nonetheless, the trial court granted their motion to dismiss on the basis of a finding of prejudice arising out of the state’s failure to comply with discovery rules. We find that the granting of the motion to dismiss as to these five defendants was an abuse of discretion. Dismissal is an extreme sanction which should be imposed only when less severe sanctions would not accomplish the desired result. *State v. King,*372 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Although the waiver of speedy trial time does not excuse the state’s discovery violations, it does prevent these five defendants from showing sufficient prejudice to justify the dismissal. Since Avila, Serrano, Perez, Escorcia and Cortez had all filed waivers of speedy trial, a more appropriate sanction, among others available to the court, would have been the continuance of the trial for a period of time sufficient to allow the defendants to obtain discovery and prepare for trial. Since lesser sanctions could have been imposed to remedy any prejudice there might be to these defendants, dismissal was too harsh.

The dismissal of the charges against Antonio Avila, Carlos Serrano, Luis Perez, Jorge Luis Escorcia, and Alberto Cortez is reversed. The orders dismissing the charges against the remaining defendants are affirmed.

OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
HomeYemen

# Yemen

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

314 items

        -    DS Memorial  		Zaid Yahya Mohammed Al-Gurbani	  September 17, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Yemen (04-206) – Agreement Concerning the Development of Trade and Investment Relations	  February 6, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Yemen (03-1217.1) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to International Tribunals	  December 17, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Yemen (99-720) – Defense Assistance Agreement	  July 20, 1999 

previous page1…303132

Back to Top
§ 435.923 Authorized representatives. ( a ) ( 1 ) The agency must permit applicants and beneficiaries to designate an individual or organization to act responsibly on their behalf in assisting with the individual's application and renewal of eligibility and other ongoing communications with the agency. Such a designation must be in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, including the applicant's signature, and must be permitted at the time of application and at other times.
( 2 ) Authority for an individual or entity to act on behalf of an applicant or beneficiary accorded under state law, including but not limited to, a court order establishing legal guardianship or a power of attorney, must be treated as a written designation by the applicant or beneficiary of authorized representation.
( b ) Applicants and beneficiaries may authorize their representatives to— ( 1 ) Sign an application on the applicant's behalf;
( 2 ) Complete and submit a renewal form;
( 3 ) Receive copies of the applicant or beneficiary's notices and other communications from the agency;
( 4 ) Act on behalf of the applicant or beneficiary in all other matters with the agency.
( c ) The power to act as an authorized representative is valid until the applicant or beneficiary modifies the authorization or notifies the agency that the representative is no longer authorized to act on his or her behalf, or the authorized representative informs the agency that he or she no longer is acting in such capacity, or there is a change in the legal authority upon which the individual or organization's authority was based. Such notice must be in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section and should include the applicant or authorized representative's signature as appropriate.
( d ) The authorized representative— ( 1 ) Is responsible for fulfilling all responsibilities encompassed within the scope of the authorized representation, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, to the same extent as the individual he or she represents;
( 2 ) Must agree to maintain, or be legally bound to maintain, the confidentiality of any information regarding the applicant or beneficiary provided by the agency.
( e ) The agency must require that, as a condition of serving as an authorized representative, a provider or staff member or volunteer of an organization must affirm that he or she will adhere to the regulations in part 431, subpart F of this chapter and at 45 CFR 155.260(f) (relating to confidentiality of information), § 447.10 of this chapter (relating to the prohibition against reassignment of provider claims as appropriate for a facility or an organization acting on the facility's behalf), as well as other relevant State and Federal laws concerning conflicts of interest and confidentiality of information.
( f ) For purposes of this section, the agency must accept electronic, including telephonically recorded, signatures and handwritten signatures transmitted by facsimile or other electronic transmission. Designations of authorized representatives must be accepted through all of the modalities described in § 435.907(a).
[78 FR 42303, July 15, 2013]
#### § 423.2335 Beneficiary dispute resolution.

The Part D coverage determination and appeals process as described in §§ 423.558 through 423.638 applies to beneficiary disputes involving the availability and amount of applicable discounts under the Discount Program.