alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 423.2026 Disqualification of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator. ( a ) An ALJ or attorney adjudicator may not adjudicate an appeal if he or she is prejudiced or partial to the enrollee or has any interest in the matter pending for decision.
( b ) If an enrollee objects to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator assigned to adjudicate the appeal, the enrollee must notify the ALJ within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice of hearing if a non-expedited hearing is scheduled, except for expedited hearings in which the enrollee must submit written or oral notice no later than 2 calendar days after the date of the notice of hearing, or the ALJ or attorney adjudicator at any time before a decision, dismissal order, or remand order is issued if no hearing is scheduled. The ALJ or attorney adjudicator must document all oral objections in writing and maintain the documentation in the case files. The ALJ or attorney adjudicator considers the enrollee's objections and decides whether to proceed with the appeal or withdraw.
( c ) If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator withdraws, another ALJ or attorney adjudicator will be assigned to adjudicate the appeal. If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator does not withdraw, the enrollee may, after the ALJ or attorney adjudicator has issued an action in the case, present his or her objections to the Council in accordance with § 423.2100 through § 423.2130. The Council will then consider whether the decision or dismissal should be revised or, if applicable, a new hearing held before another ALJ.
( d ) If the enrollee objects to the ALJ or attorney adjudicator and the ALJ or attorney adjudicator subsequently withdraws from the appeal, any adjudication period that applies to the appeal in accordance with § 423.2016 is extended by 14 calendar days for a standard appeal, or 2 calendar days for an expedited appeal.
[82 FR 5132, Jan. 17, 2017]
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases

HomeBureau of Intelligence and Research...Leadership – Bureau of Intelligence and Research

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Intelligence and Research					

6											Items									

          -  							Holmgren, Brett M.						Assistant SecretaryBureau of Intelligence and Research 
          -  							Kenna, Ambassador Lisa						Principal Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Intelligence and Research 
          -  							Redmond, Annette L. 						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Intelligence and Research 
          -  							Faranda, Regina						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Intelligence and Research 
          -  							Hall, Jr., Jimmy L. 						Chief Information Officer and Director, Technology, and Innovation OfficeBureau of Intelligence and Research 
          -  							Lessenberry, Brian						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Intelligence and Research 

Back to Top
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHARLES ANTHONY BURNS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-668

[July 30, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah H. Weiss, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CF-006519-AXXX-MB.

Charles Anthony Burns, Punta Gorda, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### DIXIE MOTOR COACH CORPORATION, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO., Inc., Appellee.*

No. 7416.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Feb. 15, 1935.

George S. Wright, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Neth L. Leachman, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUT-CHESON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rehearing denied March 27, 1935.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Except as to the parties and the amounts involved, this case is in all respects similar to the case of Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., Inc., (C. C. A.) 75 F.(2d) 426, decided this day. On the authority of that case, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony A. Lombardo, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1.
  the
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
  2, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
  the
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: October 12, 2006
  
  /s/
  Anthony A. LombardoAnthony
  A. Lombardo, President,Chief
  Executive Officer, Director -50-
#### § 456.372 Medicaid agency review of need for admission.

Medical and other professional personnel of the Medicaid agency or its designees must evaluate each applicant's or beneficiary's need for admission by reviewing and assessing the evaluations required by § 456.370.
EXHIBIT 32.1

             SECTION 906 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


         In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005, of Britton & Koontz Capital  Corporation (the "Company"),  as
filed with the  Securities  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"),  I, W. Page Ogden,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1)  the Annual  Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Date: March 21, 2006                   /s/ W. Page Ogden
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       W. Page Ogden
                                       Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 32.2

             SECTION 906 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


         In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005, of Britton & Koontz Capital  Corporation (the "Company"),  as
filed with the  Securities  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"),  I,  William M.  Salters,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1)  the Annual  Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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




Date: March 21, 2006                   /s/ William M. Salters
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       William M. Salters
                                       Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TERRIE BANHAZL, dba Heirloom Ceramics, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

THE AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY, 

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2022-1902

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:16-cv-10791-ADB, Judge 

Allison Dale Burroughs.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-1902 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2023
2 BANHAZL V. AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 15, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 15, 2023

Case: 22-1902 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/15/2023
# The Attorney General of Texas

December 28, 1979 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Hal H.Hood Firemen’s Pension Commissioner 503-F SamHouston State Office Bldg. Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No. NW-119 Re: Eligibility for membership in the Pension Fund of a person who has reached his 35th birthday, but has not reached his36th birthday. Dear Commissioner Hood: You have asked our opinion in construing article 6243e, section MA-3(i) which provides that noperson is eligible for membership in the city Fireman’s Relief and Retirement Fund if he is more than thirty-five (35) years of age at the time he first enters service as afireman. The question presented is whether a person who is subject to this statute is “more than thirty-five (35)years of age” the day after his 35th birthday or not until he becomes thirty-six (36)years ofage. In construing this statute, we feel it significant that under article l269m, section 9, dealing with fireman’s civil service, the requirement is made that no person is eligible for a beginning position with a Fire Department whohasreached his thirty-sixth (36th) birthday. While it is arguable that an individual is more than thirty-five (35) years of age the day after his 35th birthday, the requirements of the civil service law suggest that what the legislature intended by the phrase “more than thirty-five (35) years of age” in article 6243e, section lOA-3(i) is age thirty-six rather than thirty-five years and one day. SUMMARY For the purposes of article 6243e, section lOA-3(i), a person is not more than thirty-five (35)years of age until he reaches his thirty-sixth (36th) birthday.

- MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas

P. 374Honorable Hal H.Hood - Page Two (Mw-119)

JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TEDL.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byEva KingLoutzenhiser Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C.Robert Heath, Chairman David B.Brooks BobGammage Susan Garrison Rick Gilpin Les King Eva KingLoutzenhiser Bruce Youngblocd

P. 375
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 22, 2014

jam 

# Order

Clerk April 22, 2014

1 48994 ( 22 )

DAVID A. CHERRY

,

Plaint iff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148994

COA: 319071

RICHARD M. RIGGS

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 1 7.00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 5 8.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
#### The CITY OF HIALEAH, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Dale G. BENNETT, Individually, and as Mayor of the City of Hialeah, Florida; Doris J. Magursky, William E. Moye; Joel K. Schleifer: and Jo An Moye, Appellees.

No. 79-605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1979.

*484Goldstein & Goldstein and Harvey M. Goldstein, Miami, for appellant.

Lee E. Weissenborn and Joseph H. Weil, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., SCHWARTZ, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of the rule stated as follows in *Cahn v. Town of Huntington,*29 N.Y.2d 451, 328 N.Y.S.2d 672, 676, 278 N.E.2d 908, 910 (1972):

> [A] municipal board or officer possesses implied authority to employ counsel in the good faith prosecution or defense of an action undertaken in the public interest, and in conjunction with its or his official duties where the municipal attorney refused to act, or was incapable of, or was disqualified from, acting.

Accord, *Waigand v. City of Nampa,*64 Idaho 432, 133 P.2d 738 (1943); *Braslow v. Barnett,*74 Misc.2d 26, 343 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Dist.Ct.1973); *Krahmer v. McClafferty,*282 A.2d 631 (Super.Ct.Del.1971); see *City of North Miami Beach v. Estes,*214 So.2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. disch., 227 So.2d 33 (Fla.1969); cf. *Shuler v. School Board of Liberty County,*366 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 368 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1979).
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Hill, Christopher R – Republic of Serbia – November 2021

# 									Hill, Christopher R – Republic of Serbia – November 2021							

Certificate of Competency

November 8, 2021

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  Republic of Serbia

CANDIDATE:     Christopher R. Hill

Christopher R. Hill is the George Ball Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.  Before retiring from the Foreign Service in 2010, Hill served as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Korea, Poland and Macedonia, as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as Head of the U.S. delegation to the 6 Party Talks on North Korea.

Earlier in his diplomatic career, Ambassador Hill was a member of the negotiating team whose efforts led to the Dayton Peace Agreement, ending the Bosnian war.  He served as an economic officer in Belgrade, then capital of Yugoslavia, in the late 1970’s, later returning to the region as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tirana, Albania and Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia.  His decades of senior-level diplomatic experience, and expertise in global politics, make him well-qualified to serve, for the fifth time, as a U.S. Ambassador.

For ten years following retirement from the Foreign Service, Ambassador Hill was dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, and then Chief Advisor to the Chancellor for Global Engagement and Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy, at the University of Denver.  He earned a B.A. at Bowdoin College and an M.S. at the Naval War College.  The recipient of numerous honors, including the Robert S. Frasure Award for Peace Negotiations, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Meritorious Civilian Service, and (twice) the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Award, Ambassador Hill speaks Serbian, Polish, Macedonian and French.

Back to Top
§ 438.116 Solvency standards. ( a ) *Requirement for assurances.* ( 1 ) Each MCO, PIHP, and PAHP that is not a Federally qualified HMO (as defined in section 1310 of the Public Health Service Act) must provide assurances satisfactory to the State showing that its provision against the risk of insolvency is adequate to ensure that its Medicaid enrollees will not be liable for the MCO's, PIHP's, or PAHP's debts if the entity becomes insolvent.
( 2 ) Federally qualified HMOs, as defined in section 1310 of the Public Health Service Act, are exempt from this requirement.
( b ) *Other requirements* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an MCO or PIHP, must meet the solvency standards established by the State for private health maintenance organizations, or be licensed or certified by the State as a risk-bearing entity.
( 2 ) *Exception.* Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to an MCO or PIHP that meets any of the following conditions: ( i ) Does not provide both inpatient hospital services and physician services.
( ii ) Is a public entity.
( iii ) Is (or is controlled by) one or more Federally qualified health centers and meets the solvency standards established by the State for those centers.
( iv ) Has its solvency guaranteed by the State.
ACTIO M 

## SlO-100308-05 2 CONTRO Lrj o 

## Hfnnnrab k Rober t A . In e (UnngreBHtnanEmcritu a^: j C" 5 

### ¥ M

### Sn x4D r Maynt . N . 3 . fl?47fl Marc h2 , 201 0

Th e Honorabl e Ra yLaHood , Secretar y^ Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n. j c 5 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E —" ^ Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio nService s Allocatio nProceedin g

DOT-GS T -2010-001 8 Dea r Secretar yLaHood : I suppor t th e Continenta l Airline s applicatio nt o provid e dail y nonsto p Servic e betwee nNe wYork/Newar k an d Toky o Haned a Airport . Ne wai r servic e t o Haneda , whic hi s schedule d t o begi nlate r thi s year , i s mad e possibl e b yth e wid e rangin g ope n skie s agreemen t wit hJapa n achieve d b yyou r Department . I applau d you r effort s o n th e histori c ope n skie s agreemen t an d no wurg e yo u t o selec t Continenta l t o provid e servic e connectin g th e U.S.' s financia l an d commercia l cente r a t Ne wYork/Newar k wit hTokyo' s central/downtow n Airport . Continental' s Liberty-Haned a servic e woul d provid e a critica l lin k betwee n tw o o f th e world' s larges t economie s an d wil l hel p boos t trad e an d commerc e acros s th e Ne wYork/Newar k regio nan d secondaril y acros s th e entir e northeaster nregio no f th e U.S . Libert yAirpor t i s surrounde d b yth e larges t populatio npe r squar e mil e i n th e country , whic hInclude s million s o f Asia nAmericans . Additionally , recen t studie s sho wtha t fo r ever yfligh t adde d b yContinenta l th e Ne wYork / Newar k region , th e loca l econom ybenefit s a s employmen t i s sustained , regiona l income s ar e enhance d an d trad e expands .

### - 2 -

A s Continenta l operate s the larges t hubi n the regio n tha t connect s Ne wYork/Newar k an

d muc ho f the U.S . t o the world . Continenta l i s the righ t choic e fo r ne wHaned a servic e a s communitie s acros s the entir e easter n U.S . wil l gai n acces s t o Haned a vi a connection s a t Liberty . Additionally , Continenta l Airline s ha s se t itsel f apar t a s a strong airlin e wit ha commitmen t t o safet yan d excellenc e fo r customers . N o doub t thi s shoul d b e take n int o accoun t whe n awarding an

yrout e t o Haneda . Continenta l Airline s i s committe d t o serving th e Asia n regio n an d t o thi s nonsto p Tokyo Haned a service . Th e Ne wYork/Newar k economy , the U.S . consumer s i n the regio n an d o n the U.S . eas t coas t an d the airline' s thousand s o f employee s wil l benefi t fromContinental' s propose d service , workin g togethe r t o mak e Libert yInternationa l Airpor t - Haned a servic e a rea l success . I urg e yo u t o award Toky o Haned a right s t o Continenta l Airline s an d m yregio n o f th e U.S . Wit hal l goo d wishes . Sincer i



## P ^Rob^^ . Roe
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22356]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0745]


Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel ELLA G

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel ELLA G as required 
by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on July 28, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2009-0745 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast 
Guard, telephone 504-671-2153. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel ELLA G will be used for offshore supply 
operations. The horizontal distance between the forward and aft 
masthead lights may be 21'-10''. Placing the aft masthead light at the 
horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by 
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light 
location directly over the cargo deck where it would interfere with 
loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, 
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: August 10, 2009.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-22356 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P