alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, *against*Leopold Kurtz *et al.,*Defendants.

(Decided May 7th, 1890.)

A judgment entered on a forfeited recognizance cannot be vacated where it is not shown that the principal has either surrendered himself or been surrendered by his surety, or that the surety has made diligent efforts to secure and surrender him; nor unless the certificates of the district-attorney, that the people have lost no rights by reason of the failure of the surety to produce the principal, and of the sheriff, that all fees and charges have been paid, are presented. That the surety had no notice to produce the principal on the day when the recognizance was forfeited cannot avail; a party under recognizance may be called on any day during the continuance of the court.

Motion to vacate a judgment entered on a forfeited recognizance.

*J.*_ZY Miller, for the surety, defendant, for the motion.

*J. R. Fellows,*District Attorney, opposed.

Per Curiam.

[Larremore, Ch. J., and J. F. Daly and Bischopp, JJ.]—The principal was indicted on the 25th of October, 1888, for the crirn.e of grand larceny and for criminally receiving stolen property. He was arrested, and on the 23rd of November, 1888, he, together with the surety, entered into a recognizance in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars for his appearance to answer the indictment. The case was on the calendar of the Court of General Sessions on the 11th of April, 1889, when the principal failed to appear and the surety did not produce him according to the terms of the recognizance, which was thereupon forfeited, and afterwards judgment was duly entered upon such forfeiture.

The papers submitted fail to show that the principal has either surrendered himself or been surrendered by his surety, or that the surety lias made diligent efforts to secure the principal and surrender him. Under such circumstances an *189application to discharge a judgment entered upon a forfeited recognizance, made before the prisoner is produced or tried or a *nolle prosequi*entered, is premature and cannot be considered *(People*v. Fields, 6 Daly 410; *People*v. Deery, Id. 493).

It is also required by law that, upon a motion to vacate and set aside a judgment on a forfeited recognizance, the certificate of the district attorney that the people have lost no rights by reason of the failure of the surety to produce the principal in compliance with the terms of the recognizance given by them, and also a certificate of the sheriff that all fees and charges have been paid, must be annexed to the application (Laws 1882, c. 410, §§ 1482, 1483). The applicant has failed to present such certificates.

The fact that the surety had no notice to produce his principal on the day when the recognizance was forfeited cannot avail, because a party under recognizance may be called on any day during the continuance of the court *(People*v. Blankman, 17 Wend: 252).

The application should therefore be denied, with ten dollars costs.
§ 421.205 Termination by the Secretary. ( a ) *Cause for termination.* The Secretary may terminate a contract with a carrier at any time if he or she determines that the carrier has failed substantially to carry out any material terms of the contract or has performed its function in a manner inconsistent with the effective and efficient administration of the Medicare Part B program.
( b ) *Notice and opportunity for hearing.* Upon notification of the Secretary's intent to terminate the contract, the carrier may request a hearing within 20 days after the date on the notice of intent to terminate.
( c ) *Hearing procedures.* The hearing procedures will be those specified in § 421.128(c).
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS 

L.P.,

Appellant

v.

MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P., 

POWDER SPRINGS LOGISTICS, LLC,

Appellees

______________________

2020-1719, 2020-1720

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-

00024, IPR2019-00025.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JOHN R. KEVILLE, Winston & Strawn LLP, Houston, 

TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL C.

KRILL, MICHELLE REPLOGLE; RICHARD L. STANLEY, Law Office of Richard L. Stanley, Houston, TX.

 NITIKA GUPTA FIORELLA, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE, argued for all appellees. Appellee Magellan 

Midstream Partners L.P. also represented by MARTINA 

Case: 20-1719 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2021
TYREUS HUFNAL, DOUGLAS E. MCCANN.

 DAVID S. MORELAND, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, 

Atlanta, GA, for appellee Powder Springs Logistics, LLC.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

July 12, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1719 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2021
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

April 28, 2014

t0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148487

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148487

COA: 309365

Wayne CC: 10

- 011337

- FH

NATALIE ERNESTINE FOSTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2013

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J. , would grant leave to appeal.
###### 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.

#### § 457.470 Prohibited coverage.

A State is not required to provide health benefits coverage under the plan for an item or service for which payment is prohibited under title XXI even if any benchmark health benefits plan includes coverage for that item or service.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...First Welcome Corps Refugee Arrivals Greeted by Sponsors in the United States

# 									First Welcome Corps Refugee Arrivals Greeted by Sponsors in the United States							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

June 21, 2023

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023, coinciding with World Refugee Day, the first refugees to be privately sponsored by Americans through the Welcome Corps arrived in the United States.

A three-generation Congolese family and an individual from Ethiopia were welcomed to their new communities by their private sponsors in Moorhead and Worthington, Minnesota.  Local communities across the country have long been at the heart of our refugee resettlement program.  By welcoming these first arrivals, Minnesotans are leading the way as the  Department of State rolls out the Welcome Corps nationwide in a groundbreaking innovation to the U.S. approach for resettling refugees.

Over the past two years, Americans from every part of the country have responded enthusiastically to the call to welcome our Afghan allies, Ukrainians displaced by war, and others fleeing persecution. This past January, the Department of State, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services, launched the Welcome Corps: a private sponsorship initiative that enables everyday Americans to directly sponsor refugees from around the world to resettle in their communities. The Welcome Corps builds on the enthusiasm Americans have displayed by inviting American citizens and lawful permanent residents, like the sponsors in Minnesota who welcomed these newest arrivals, to do what Americans do best – be generous neighbors, guides, and friends to refugee newcomers as they seek to build new lives in the United States.

The Welcome Corps seeks to mobilize at least 10,000 Americans to step forward as private sponsors in the program’s first year and offer a welcoming hand to resettle at least 5,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.  In the first several months since its launch, the Welcome Corps has already generated significant interest, with thousands having already signed up to learn more by email and participate in information sessions.  We encourage those of you interested in sponsoring refugees to visit welcomecorps.org to learn more. Engaging in private sponsorship is an opportunity to change lives, including your own.

For more information on the Welcome Corps, please visit the program website.

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationMinnesotaOffice of the SpokespersonRefugee AdmissionsRefugees

Back to Top
* 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. 98-40055 Conference Calendar

PATRICK MAC JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE MEMBERS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:95-CV-381

- - - - - - - - - - August 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Patrick Mac Jackson, Texas inmate #478883, seeks to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Jackson is BARRED by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Jackson has brought an action or appeal in a United States Court that was dismissed for frivolousness, for maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5thNo. 98-40055 -2- Cir. 1996); see also Jackson v. Zeller , No. 96-CV-110 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 1998); Jackson v. Herklotz , No. 9:95-CV-318 (E.D. Tex. May 27, 1997); Jackson v. Herklotz , No. G-92-CV-483 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 1996). Accordingly, Jackson’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED. He may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This appeal is DISMISSED. Jackson has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
### 11 Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder,

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA , ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED



### Lockheed Martin Ralph Sykes 6/4/2014 Concur.



### Lockhee d Martin Eric Jones 6/4/2014 Concur.

Other/Additional Information:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 11-258016) pertaining to the Universal American Financial Corp.
401(k) Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-2 No. 333-03641)
pertaining to the Universal American Financial Corp. Incentive Stock Option
Plan, Agents Stock Purchase Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan for Agents, Stock
Option Plan for Directors, and Non-qualified Stock Option Plans for Agents and
Others and (Form S-3 No. 333-120190) pertaining to the registration of Debt
Securities, Preferred Stock, Common Stock, Depositary Shares, Warrants, Stock
Purchase Contracts, Stock Purchase Units and Common Stock for Universal American
Financial Corp., of our reports dated March 11, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Universal
American Financial Corp., Universal American Financial Corp. management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Universal
American Financial Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2004.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, NY
March 15, 2005
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 quarterly report of Digicorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jay Rifkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


December 13, 2006                           /s/ Jay Rifkin
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jay Rifkin
                                            Chief Executive Officer
HomeInternational Digital Economy and Telecommunication Advisory Committee Meetings...Agenda: Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

# 									Agenda: Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee							

March 28, 2019

**Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory CommitteeThursday March 29, 2018, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST**

AT&T 1120 20th Street NW, Washington DC 20036Conference room 10-1 (10th Floor)

**United States:**1-800-230-1074**International:**1-612-288-0329
        - Introductions of all participants present both in person and on conference call
        - Approval of Draft Agenda/Welcoming Remarks – Chair
        - Results of the ITU Plenipotentiary (PP-18) Key accomplishments
        - CITEL           - PCC. I
          - PCC. II 
        - ITU Council
        - ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) meetings
        - ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) meetings           - Regional group meetings
          - Bilat schedule
          - WRC preparations 
        - ITU Development Sector(ITU-D) meetings
        - World Radio Conference WRC – 2019
        - APEC Telecommunications Working Group 59 (APEC-TEL 59)
        - OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)           -              - OECD work to foster trust in and adoption of Artificial Intelligence
            - OECD Going Digital Summit 
        - G20 Digital Economy Task Force
        - G7 Innovation / ICT Track
        - Any Other Business
        - Next meeting
        - Adjourn

Tags

Advisory CommitteeBureau of Economic and Business AffairsInternational Telecommunication UnionTelecommunications

Back to Top
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.

§ 457.1140 Program specific review process: Core elements of review. In adopting the procedures for review of matters described in § 457.1130, a State must ensure that— ( a ) Reviews are conducted by an impartial person or entity in accordance with § 457.1150;
( b ) Review decisions are timely in accordance with § 457.1160;
( c ) Review decisions are written; and
( d ) Applicants and enrollees have an opportunity to— ( 1 ) Represent themselves or have representatives of their choosing in the review process;
( 2 ) Timely review their files and other applicable information relevant to the review of the decision;
( 3 ) Fully participate in the review process, whether the review is conducted in person or in writing, including by presenting supplemental information during the review process; and
( 4 ) Receive continued enrollment and benefits in accordance with § 457.1170.
[66 FR 2687, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 89 FR 22877, Apr. 2, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.615 Relations with State health and vocational rehabilitation agencies and title V grantees. ( a ) *Basis and purpose.* This section implements section 1902(a)(11) and (22)(C) of the Act, by setting forth State plan requirements for arrangements and agreements between the Medicaid agency and— ( 1 ) State health agencies;
( 2 ) State vocational rehabilitation agencies; and
( 3 ) Grantees under title V of the Act, Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's Services.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section— “Title V grantee” means the agency, institution, or organization receiving Federal payments for part or all of the cost of any service program or project authorized by title V of the Act, including— ( 1 ) Maternal and child health services;
( 2 ) Crippled children's services;
( 3 ) Maternal and infant care projects;
( 4 ) Children and youth projects; and
( 5 ) Projects for the dental health of children.
( c ) *State plan requirements.* A state plan must— ( 1 ) Describe cooperative arrangements with the State agencies that administer, or supervise the administration of, health services and vocational rehabilitation services designed to make maximum use of these services;
( 2 ) Provide for arrangements with title V grantees, under which the Medicaid agency will utilize the grantee to furnish services that are included in the State plan;
( 3 ) Provide that all arrangements under this section meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section; and
( 4 ) Provide, if requested by the title V grantee in accordance with the arrangements made under this section, that the Medicaid agency reimburse the grantee or the provider for the cost of services furnished beneficiaries by or through the grantee.
( d ) *Content of arrangements.* The arrangements referred to in paragraph (c) must specify, as appropriate— ( 1 ) The mutual objectives and responsibilities or each party to the arrangement;
( 2 ) The services each party offers and in what circumstances;
( 3 ) The cooperative and collaborative relationships at the State level;
( 4 ) The kinds of services to be provided by local agencies; and
( 5 ) Methods for— ( i ) Early identification of individuals under 21 in need of medical or remedial services;
( ii ) Reciprocal referrals;
( iii ) Coordinating plans for health services provided or arranged for beneficiaries;
( iv ) Payment or reimbursement;
( v ) Exchange of reports of services furnished to beneficiaries;
( vi ) Periodic review and joint planning for changes in the agreements;
( vii ) Continuous liaison between the parties, including designation of State and local liaison staff; and
( viii ) Joint evaluation of policies that affect the cooperative work of the parties.
( e ) *Federal financial participation.* FFP is available in expenditures for Medicaid services provided to beneficiaries through an arrangement under this section.
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|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 on Form 10-KSB of National Property Investors 6 (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each 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 the best of 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 27, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 27, 2008   





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
###### 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.

#### § 457.236 Audits.

The CHIP agency must assure appropriate audit of records on costs of provider services.