alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 426.340 Procedures for review of new evidence. ( a ) The process for review of new evidence is initiated once the ALJ/Board completes the taking of evidence.
( b ) If an aggrieved party has submitted new evidence pertaining to the LCD/NCD provision(s) in question, and the ALJ or the Board finds that evidence admissible, the ALJ or the Board reviews the record as a whole and decide whether the new evidence has the potential to significantly affect the ALJ's or the Board's evaluation of the LCD/NCD provision(s) in question under the reasonableness standard.
( c ) If the ALJ or the Board determines that the new evidence does not have the potential to significantly affect the ALJ's or the Board's evaluation of the LCD/NCD provision(s) in question under the reasonableness standard, this evidence is included in the review record, and the review goes forward to a decision on the merits.
( d ) If the ALJ or the Board determines that the new evidence has the potential to significantly affect the ALJ's or the Board's evaluation of the LCD or NCD provision(s) in question under the reasonableness standard, then the ALJ or the Board— ( 1 ) Stays the proceedings and ensures that the contractor or CMS, whichever is appropriate, has a copy of the new evidence for its examination; and
( 2 ) Allows the contractor/CMS 10 days, generally, to examine the new evidence, and to decide whether the contractor or CMS initiates a reconsideration.
( e ) If the contractor or CMS informs the ALJ or the Board by the end of the 10 days that a reconsideration is initiated, and then the ALJ or the Board— ( 1 ) Continues the stay in proceedings; and
( 2 ) Sets a reasonable timeframe— ( i ) For LCDs, of not more than 90 days, by which the contractor completes the reconsideration; or
( ii ) For NCDs, in compliance with the timeframes specified in section 1862(1) of the Act, by which CMS completes the reconsideration.
( f ) The ALJ or Board lifts the stay in proceedings and continues the review on the challenged provision(s) of the original LCD or NCD, including the new evidence in the review record, if the contractor or CMS— ( 1 ) Informs the ALJ or Board that a reconsideration is not initiated; or
( 2 ) Does not meet— ( i ) For LCDs, the 90-day reconsideration timeframe; or
( ii ) For NCDs, the reconsideration timeframe specified by the Board, in compliance with section 1862(l) of the Act.
( g ) If an LCD or NCD is reconsidered and revised within the timeframe allotted by the ALJ or Board, then the revised LCD or NCD and any supplement to the LCD or NCD record is forwarded to the ALJ or the Board and all parties and the review proceeds on the LCD or NCD.
[68 FR 63716, Nov. 7, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 70335, Nov. 21, 2005; 71 FR 9461, Feb. 24, 2006]
#### § 408.47 [Reserved]
#### Gertrude HAZZARD and Ann Gaffan, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Appellees.

No. 75-984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 11, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...Israel (20-1203.1) – Extension to Agreement of July 27, 2004 Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural Products, as extended

# 									Israel (20-1203.1) – Extension to Agreement of July 27, 2004 Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural Products, as extended							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 3, 2020

Trade and Investment: Agricultural Products

Exchange of letters at Jerusalem and Washington December 3, 2020; entered into force December 3, 2020.

Extension of agreement of July 27, 2004: TIAS 04-910.

Agreement previously extended and amended December 10, 2008: TIAS 04-910; December 6, 2009: TIAS 04-910 [3 MB]; November 19, 2012: TIAS 04-910; December 4, 2016; December 5, 2017: November 8, 2018: TIAS 18-1108; December 4, 2019: TIAS 19-1204.
Download Agreement						 [232 KB]

Tags

IsraelTrade and InvestmentTreaties

Back to Top
HomeInternational Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs) Statement of Purpose

# 									International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs) Statement of Purpose							

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

February 27, 2019

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly at its 50th Anniversary on October 22, 1995, then-President Clinton called for the establishment of a network of International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs) throughout the world to combat international drug trafficking, criminality, and terrorism through strengthened international cooperation.

Now, years later, the United States and participating nations have moved ahead with the establishment of ILEAs to serve four regions: Europe, Africa, South America and Asia.

Depending on regional needs and United States national interests, we are prepared to consider establishing similar ILEAs elsewhere. We would seek a host country that enjoys political stability, has the ability to provide adequate infrastructure and is willing to share costs and responsibilities. The host government should also be able to provide a suitable site, easily accessible by reliable transportation links.

The ILEAs serve a broad range of foreign policy and law enforcement purposes for the United States and for the world. In addition to helping protect American citizens and businesses through strengthened international cooperation against crime, the ILEAs’ mission is to buttress democratic governance through the rule of law; enhance the functioning of free markets through improved legislation and law enforcement; and increase social, political, and economic stability by combating narcotics trafficking and crime.

To reach these goals, the ILEAs conduct activities designed to realize the following objectives:
        -  Support regional and local criminal justice institution building and law enforcement. 
        -  Facilitate strengthened partnerships among countries in regions served by the ILEAs aimed at addressing problems of drugs and crime. 
        -  Provide high-quality training and technical assistance in formulating strategies and tactics for foreign law enforcement personnel. 
        -  Improve coordination, foster cooperation, and, as appropriate, facilitate harmonization of law enforcement activities within regions, in a manner compatible with U.S. interests. 
        -  Foster cooperation by foreign law enforcement authorities with U.S. law enforcement entities engaged in organized crime and other criminal investigations. 
        -  Assist foreign law enforcement entities in the professionalization of their forces in a cost-effective manner. 
        -  Build linkages between U.S. law enforcement entities and future criminal justice leadership in participating countries, and among regional participants with one another. 

Tags

Law EnforcementTraining

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Syria Envoys-level Meeting in Amman

# 									Joint Statement on Syria Envoys-level Meeting in Amman							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 23, 2023

The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the League of Arab States following their meeting in Amman, Jordan on March 21, 2023, to discuss the current situation in Syria in the aftermath of the earthquakes.

*Begin Text*

We expressed our heartfelt condolences for the immense devastation and loss of life caused by the February 6 earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria, as well as our steadfast commitment to alleviate the suffering of those affected.  We encouraged the international community to provide humanitarian assistance – including both emergency response and early recovery projects – to all Syrians in need, especially those in the most affected areas.  In this regard, we welcomed the outcomes of the March 20, 2023, international donors’ conference in Brussels to support the people in Türkiye and Syria, and we also looked forward to the seventh annual Brussels Conference on the Future of Syria and the Region on June 15, 2023.  We reiterated our call for a nationwide ceasefire and for continuous and unhindered humanitarian access to all Syrians through all modalities, including both cross-border and cross-line.  We called for the maintenance and expansion of United Nations cross-border aid, for which there is no alternative in scope or scale.  In this regard, we welcomed the recent facilitation by the Syrian authorities of UN cross-border humanitarian access through the Bab al-Salam and al-Rai crossings and called for this to continue.

We also welcomed UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen’s briefing and reaffirmed our support for UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

*End Text*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsEarthquakes in Syria and Turkey (Türkiye)Office of the SpokespersonSyriaTurkey

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### Richard W. TOBIAS, Appellant, v. Bonnie K. TOBIAS, Appellee.

No. 79-1007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1980.

*934Wayne J. Boyer of Boyer & Fricker, and Keith K. Mattson of Legal Clinic of Tampa Bay, Clearwater, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of *Johnson v. Johnson,*284 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. .
HomeRecent Actions for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...Finance Recent Actions

# 									Finance Recent Actions							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Finance – IMF Agreement – Notification of Signature and Deposit of Instrument; Andorra, October 16, 2020

Tags

FinanceMultilateralTreaties

Back to Top
#### Regina DIFALCO, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 80-2295.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 21, 1981.

*1058Fernandez & Olivera, Miami, for appellant.

Jeanne Heyward, Goodhart & Rosner, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

The appellant seeks review of a final summary judgment for the appellee, Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, holding the appellee had effectively can-celled the appellant’s automobile insurance policy pursuant to Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977).

Industrial issued an automobile insurance policy on the appellant’s vehicle, covering it for collision damage among other things. The effective date of the policy was from September 20, 1979 to September 20, 1980. The appellant failed to pay the premium thereon and, in accordance with Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977), Industrial sent notices on November 14, 1979 to the appellant and to the bank cancelling coverage effective November 26, 1979. On December 21, the appellant was involved in an automobile accident, damaging her automobile. Thereafter, she defaulted on the installment contract with the bank, which filed suit for the unpaid balance of the contract. The appellant answered that suit and filed a third party action against Industrial. Industrial answered, alleging the policy was cancelled for nonpayment of premium prior to the accident and it moved for a summary judgment. The appellant, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, alleged she never received notice of the cancellation. After hearing, the trial court entered the summary judgment appealed.

The appellant contends the trial court erred in holding there was a proper cancellation of the policy when there was no proof that she actually received notice of cancellation, relying on *Allstate Insurance Company v. Crawford,*365 So.2d 408 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).

We affirm on the authority of *Service Fire Insurance Co. of New York v. Markey,*83 So.2d 855 (Fla.1955); *Allstate Insurance Company v. Dougherty,*197 So.2d 563 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); *Burgos v. Independent Fire Insurance Company,*371 So.2d 539 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); *Vega v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company,*372 So.2d 542 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).

It is true that *Allstate Insurance Company v. Crawford,*supra, holds there must be proof of receipt of the notice of cancellation by the insured to effect cancellation, but this court has not followed that case since its inception. See: *Burgos v. Independent Fire Insurance Company,*supra; *Vega v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company,*supra. Therefore, by implication, the court has receded therefrom and we hereby formally recede from that holding. It is in conflict with the Supreme Court in *Service Fire Insurance Co. of New York v. Markey,*supra, and in violation of the pronouncements of *Hoffman v. Jones,*280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).

Affirmed.
# C_2006096EN.01001102.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 February 2006 — V v Commission

(Joined Cases T-200/03 and T-313/03) (1)

1

(Officials - Dismissal for incompetence - Article 51 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Equality of treatment - Statement of reasons - Staff report - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

(2006/C 96/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: V (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Defendant:

Application for

Firstly, annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant for incompetence and, secondly, annulment of the applicant's staff report for the 1999/2001 period

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses actions T-200/03 and T-313/03; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses actions T-200/03 and T-313/03;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear the costs it incurred during these proceedings and during the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear the costs it incurred during these proceedings and during the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1



                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Alfacell Corporation:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
33-81308) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-29313 and 333-48975) on Form S-3 of Alfacell
Corporation of our report dated October 4, 2000,  relating to the balance sheets
of Alfacell Corporation as of July 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements
of operations, stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash flows for each of the
years in the  three-year  period  ended July 31, 2000 and the period from August
24, 1981 (date of inception) to July 31, 2000,  which report appears in the July
31, 2000 annual  report on Form 10-K of Alfacell  Corporation.  Our report dated
October 4, 2000, as it relates to the financial  statements  for the period from
August 24, 1981 (date of  inception) to July 31, 2000, is based on the report of
other auditors as to the amounts included therein for the period from August 24,
1981 (date of inception) to July 31, 1992.

Our report dated October 4, 2000 contains an  explanatory  paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered  recurring losses from  operations,  has a working
capital deficit and has limited liquid resources which raise  substantial  doubt
about its ability to continue as a going  concern.  The financial  statements do
not  include  any  adjustments  that  might  result  from  the  outcome  of that
uncertainty.



/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
October 30, 2000
§ 425.802 Request for review. ( a ) An ACO may appeal an initial determination that is not prohibited from administrative or judicial review under § 425.800 by requesting a reconsideration review by a CMS reconsideration official. ( 1 ) An ACO that wants to request reconsideration review by a CMS reconsideration official must submit a written request by an authorized official for receipt by CMS within 15 days of the notice of the initial determination. ( i ) If the 15th day is a weekend or a Federal holiday, then the timeframe is extended until the end of the next business day.
( ii ) Failure to submit a request for reconsideration within 15 days will result in denial of the request for reconsideration.
( 2 ) The reconsideration review must be held on the record (review of submitted documentation).
( b ) An ACO that requests a reconsideration review for termination will remain operational throughout the review process.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32845, June 9, 2015]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John J. Quicke, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Adaptec, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the Form 10-K), that the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

Date: May 27, 2010

| |  |     |  |                                               
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
| |  |    
| |  | By: |  | /s/  JOHN J. QUICKE                           
| |  |     |  | John J. Quicke Interim
Chief Executive Officer

I, Mary L. Dotz, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
Form 10-K, that the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

Date: May 27, 2010

| |  |     |  |                                     
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
| |  |    
| |  | By: |  | /s/  MARY L. DOTZ                   
| |  |     |  | Mary L. Dotz Chief
Financial Officer
#### Michael John SOWA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Martin Lemlich, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State v. Pizarro,*383 So.2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *Allen v. State,*383 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
§ 424.127 Payment to the beneficiary. ( a ) *Conditions for payment of inpatient hospital services.* Medicare pays the beneficiary if— ( 1 ) The hospital does not have in effect an election to claim payment; and
( 2 ) The beneficiary, or someone on his or her behalf, submits— ( i ) A claim in accordance with § 424.32;
( ii ) An itemized hospital bill; and
( iii ) Evidence requested by CMS to establish that the services meet the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) *Amount payable for inpatient hospital services.* The amount payable to the beneficiary is determined in accordance with § 424.109(b).
( c ) *Conditions for payment for Part B services.* Medicare pays the beneficiary for physicians' services and ambulance services as specified in § 424.121, if an itemized bill for the services is submitted by the beneficiary or someone on his or her behalf and the conditions of § 424.126(a) (2) and (3) are met.
( d ) The amount payable to the beneficiary is determined in accordance with § 410.152 of this chapter.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. George EATON v. CLERK OF COURT, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, SECTION “D”, ORLEANS PARISH.

No. 65216.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Criminal District Court, Section “D”, applying for reconsideration. Parish of Orleans. Nos. 230-607 and 228-681.

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied. Relief cannot be granted because transcript does not exist and reporter’s notes cannot be located.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lester BRADLEY.

No. 63842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1979.

In re Lester Bradley, applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.

TATE, DIXON and MARCUS, JJ.,

concur. The contention was rejected on the relator’s appeal from his conviction. 362 So.2d 772 (La.1978).
#### DIXIE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. Joseph Lawrence HENDERSON and Dedrick Gill.

No. 54833.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1974.

In re: Joseph Lawrence, applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston, 292 So.2d 895.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.
HomeLocal Guard Force...Jose Luis Miranda Rodriguez

# 									Jose Luis Miranda Rodriguez							

DS Memorial

October 10, 1990

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Local Guard Force****Year of Death: 1990**

Jose Luis Miranda Rodriguez, a Bolivian police guard assigned to the U.S. Embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, was killed by hostile fire in an attack on the U.S. Embassy Marine Security Guard residence (Marine House) on October 10, 1990.

**Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have a digital image of this individual.**

Tags

BoliviaDS Local Guard Force

Back to Top