alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 405.954 Redetermination.

Upon the basis of the evidence of record, the contractor adjudicates the claim(s), and renders a redetermination affirming or reversing, in whole or in part, the initial determination in question.
#### § 1008.11 Who may submit a request.

Any individual or entity may submit a request to the OIG for an advisory opinion regarding an existing arrangement or one which the requestor in good faith specifically plans to undertake. The requestor must be a party to the arrangement, or proposed arrangement, that is the subject of the request.
#### Lena F. DAVIDSON v. Calvin Guy DAVIDSON and Geraldine B. Davidson.

77-677.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 6, 1979.

John D. Cates, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.

Henry C. Barnett, Jr., Montgomery, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

Upon our own motion, this Court notes the lack of a final judgment due to the fact that the circuit court has ordered an accounting. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of the required certificate under ARCP 54(b). We note, however, that if the circuit court, in its discretion, executes a certificate and if a timely appeal is thereafter taken, this Court will consider the matter upon the record with proper supplementation (including the certificate) and upon the present briefs and oral arguments of the parties if the parties are so minded. *Thames v. Gunter-Dunn,*365 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1979).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### Jonell GREEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF TAMPA, Appellee.

No. 78-2122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 10, 1980.

Laurence I. Goodrich, Tampa, for appellant.

William J. Terry of Himes, Terry. & Ket-chey, P. A., Tampa, for appellee.

DANAHY, Judge.

Jonell Green appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the City of Tampa. The basis for the judgment was a holding by the trial court that appellant’s cause of action was barred by section 95.24, Florida Statutes (1973), a one-year statute of limitation for negligence claims against a city which was repealed as of January 1, 1975. We reverse.

Appellant’s claim accrued on October 25, 1974, and thus was unbarred when section 95.24 was repealed on January 1, 1975. On that date section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1975), which waived sovereign immunity for cities and imposed a four-year statute of limitation, became effective. That section was specifically made prospective only, applying to incidents arising after January 1, 1975. Thus, section 768.28 could not be applied to save Green’s cause of action.

We hold that the controlling statute of limitation in this case is section 95.11(3)(a), as amended January 1, 1975. Section 95.-ll(3)(a) imposes a four-year limitations period for negligence actions generally. Application of this four-year time limit, which effectively extended Green’s time for commencing her claim to October 25, 1978, is *1238not a retroactive application, does not impair a vested right, and violates no legislative mandate to the contrary. *Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc.,*364 So.2d 107 (Fla.1st DCA 1978), *cert. denied,*378 So.2d 348; *Neff v. General Development Corporation,*354 So.2d 1275, 1276 n.1 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Since Green’s suit was commenced on August 25,1977, it is not barred by a statutory limitation.

Therefore, we order the trial court to reinstate Green’s amended complaint and to proceed with the cause.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
# C_2006096EN.01001202.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/12

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006 — Standertskjöld-Nordenstam and Heyraud v Commission

(Joined Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04) (1)

1

(Officials - ‘Second round’ promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Failure to include on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 - Breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment)

(2006/C 96/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: T. Demaseure, lawyer) and Jean-Claude Heyraud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

:

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's decision not to include the applicants' names on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 in the 'second round' of the 2003 promotion procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | joins Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

joins Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | annuls the decisions of the Commission not to include the applicants' names on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 in the 'second round' of the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annuls the decisions of the Commission not to include the applicants' names on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 in the 'second round' of the 2003 promotion procedure;

| 3. | orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

#### § 431.243 Parties in cases involving an eligibility determination.

If the hearing involves an issue of eligibility and the Medicaid agency is not responsible for eligibility determinations, the agency that is responsible for determining eligibility must participate in the hearing.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

### ************************************ Federal Aviation Administration 

## * * Complainant 

## * v. 

## * 

# RECEIVED MAR- 42013**HEA~~NG** 

## DOCKET

* FAA DocketNo. CP09S000003 RobertZeige, 

## * * FAA 2009-0182 Respondent 

## * * FAA Case No. 2009S0700030 

## * ************************************* Judge [Unassigned]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Complainant will be represented in the referenced matter by: Deitrick

### H. Johnson, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320-0631 Respectfully submitted this 

## :;2-S day ofFebruary, 2013.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice ofAppearance has beenmailed by Certified Mail to the following locations: Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl000 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 RobertZeige 4140 Clemmons Road Suite 370 Clemmons, NC 27012

Dated (original+ l copy)

(l copy)
§ 426.484 Mandatory provisions of a Board decision. ( a ) *Findings.* A Board decision must include at least one of the following: ( 1 ) A statement upholding the part(s) of the ALJ decision named in the appeal.
( 2 ) A statement reversing the part(s) of the ALJ decision named in the appeal.
( 3 ) A statement modifying the part(s) of the ALJ decision named in the appeal.
( 4 ) A statement dismissing the appeal of an ALJ decision and a rationale for the dismissal.
( b ) *Other information.* A Board decision must include all of the following: ( 1 ) The date of issuance.
( 2 ) The docket number of the review of the ALJ decision.
( 3 ) A summary of the ALJ's decision.
( 4 ) A rationale for the basis of the Board's decision.
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.1225 Alignment of Physician Quality Reporting System quality measures and quality measures for the value-based payment modifier.

All of the quality measures for which solo practitioners and groups (or individual eligible professionals within such groups) are eligible to report under the Physician Quality Reporting System in a given calendar year are used to calculate the value-based payment modifier for the applicable payment adjustment period, as defined in § 414.1215, to the extent a solo practitioner or a group (or individual eligible professionals within such group) submit data on such measures.

[79 FR 68006, Dec. 13, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         149,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,958,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,552,420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,914,907
<PP&E>                                      16,890,508
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,101,493)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,587,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,165,172
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        400
<COMMON>                                        53,013
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,587,204
<SALES>                                     35,608,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,608,309
<CGS>                                       28,791,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,416,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (136,643)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,284,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,043,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (647,201)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,690,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,290,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1042 Hearing on new issues. ( a ) *Basic rules.* ( 1 ) Within the time limits specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the ALJ may, at the request of either party, or on his or her own motion, provide a hearing on new issues that impinge on the rights of the affected party.
( 2 ) The ALJ may consider new issues even if CMS has not made initial determinations on them, and even if they arose after the request for hearing was filed or after a prehearing conference.
( 3 ) The ALJ may give notice of hearing on new issues at any time after the hearing request is filed and before the hearing record is closed.
( b ) *Notice and conduct of hearing on new issues.* ( 1 ) Unless the affected party waives its right to appear and present evidence, notice of the time and place of hearing on any new issue will be given to the parties in accordance with 422.1036.
( 2 ) After giving notice, the ALJ will, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, proceed to hearing on new issues in the same manner as on an issue raised in the request for hearing.
( c ) *Remand to CMS.* At the request of either party, or on his or her own motion, in lieu of a hearing under paragraph (b) of this section, the ALJ may remand the case to CMS for consideration of the new issue and, if appropriate, a determination. If necessary, the ALJ may direct CMS to return the case to the ALJ for further proceedings.
#### Cecil Wayne EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3535 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3535

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To redesignate a Federal building in Suitland, Maryland, as the ``W. 
                   Edwards Deming Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    Federal Office Building No. 3, located in the Suitland Federal 
Center at 4700 Silver Hill Road in Suitland,
Maryland, shall be redesignated and known as the ``W. Edwards Deming 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W. Edwards Deming 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Jeff Trandahl,

                                                Assistant to the Clerk.
```
§ 430.12 Submittal of State plans and plan amendments. ( a ) *Format.* A State plan for Medicaid consists of a standardized template, issued and updated by CMS, that includes both basic requirements and individualized content that reflects the characteristics of the State's program. The Secretary will periodically update the template and format specifications for State plans and plan amendments through a process consistent with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
( b ) *Governor's review* — ( 1 ) *Basic rules.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section— ( i ) The Medicaid agency must submit the State plan and State plan amendments to the State Governor or his designee for review and comment before submitting them to the CMS regional office.
( ii ) The plan must provide that the Governor will be given a specific period of time to review State plan amendments, long-range program planning projections, and other periodic reports on the Medicaid program, excluding periodic statistical, budget and fiscal reports.
( iii ) Any comments from the Governor must be submitted to CMS with the plan or plan amendment.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* ( i ) Submission is not required if the Governor's designee is the head of the Medicaid agency.
( ii ) Governor's review is not required for preprinted plan amendments that are developed by CMS if they provide absolutely no options for the State.
( c ) *Plan amendments.* ( 1 ) The plan must provide that it will be amended whenever necessary to reflect— ( i ) Changes in Federal law, regulations, policy interpretations, or court decisions; or
( ii ) Material changes in State law, organization, or policy, or in the State's operation of the Medicaid program. For changes related to advance directive requirements, amendments must be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than 60 days from the effective date of the change to State law concerning advance directives.
( 2 ) Prompt submittal of amendments is necessary— ( i ) So that CMS can determine whether the plan continues to meet the requirements for approval; and
( ii ) To ensure the availability of FFP in accordance with § 430.20.
[53 FR 36571, Sept. 21, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 33293, June 27, 1995; 81 FR 86447, Nov. 30, 2016]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA Electric Aircraft Test Bed (NEAT) Development Plan - Design, Fabrication, InstallationAs large airline companies compete to reduce emissions, fuel, noise, and maintenance costs, it is expected that more of their aircraft systems will shift from using turbofan propulsion, pneumatic bleed power, and hydraulic actuation, to instead using electrical motor propulsion, generator power, and electrical actuation. This requires new flight-weight and flight-efficient powertrain components, fault tolerant power management, and electromagnetic interference mitigation technologies. Moreover, initial studies indicate some combination of ambient and cryogenic thermal management and relatively high bus voltages when compared to state of practice will be required to achieve a net system benefit. Developing all these powertrain technologies within a realistic aircraft architectural geometry and under realistic operational conditions requires a unique electric aircraft testbed. This report will summarize existing testbed capabilities located in the U.S. and details the development of a unique complementary testbed that industry and government can utilize to further mature electric aircraft technologies.Document ID20160010440Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRodger W Dyson*(Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio, United States)*Date AcquiredAugust 18, 2016Publication DateJuly 1, 2016Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberE-19212GRC-E-DAA-TN30267Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.05.02.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewNASA Technical ManagementKeywordsHybrid ElectricAvailable DownloadsNameTypeTM-2016-219085_2022.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
Order entered May 28 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00822
- CR ANTWON CARTER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. 296
- 81511
- 2013



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On April 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) after appellant was convicted, the
trial court appointed Stephanie Hudson to represent appellant; (2) unbeknownst to the trial court, the Indigent Defense Offices of Collin County thereafter appointed Sam Rosenstein to represent appellant; (3) Mr. Rosenstein believed Ms. Hudson was representing appell ant, and Ms. Hudson never received notification of her appointment as appellant’s attorney; (4) Mr. Rosenstein is closing is law practice; and (5) Stephanie Hudson is now appointed to represent appellant. We note that although Mr. Rosenstein’s name is on t he front cover of the clerk’s record, this Court has David Waddill, who was appellant’s trial counsel and signed the notice of appeal,listed as appellate counsel. Therefore, it does not appear that either Mr. Rosenstein or Ms.

Hudson has received notices from this Court regarding the appeal. Nor does it appear that Mr. Waddill, despite being sent correspondence from this Court regarding the appeal, ever communicated to the Court that he is no longer representing appellant. Accordingly, we DIRECT the Cler k of this Court to list Stephanie Hudson as appellant’s attorney of record in place of David Waddill.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this
order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Stephanie Hudso n and to the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
41306.

41307.

#### BROWDER v. SLOAN et al. BROWDER, Next Friend v. SLOAN et al.

Submitted May 5, 1965

Decided May 13, 1965.

*Ralph L. Crawjord,*for plaintiff in error.

*Brannen, Clark & Hester, Perry Brannen,*contra.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Liability of a parent for the tort of his child in directly inflicting injury against the person of another is governed by the ordinary principles of liability of a principal for the acts of his agent or a master for his servant. Liability does not arise out of a mere relationship of parent and child.

The liability of a parent for the tort of his child as provided in *Code Ann.*§ 105-113 applies only to acts of the child directed to the damaging of property and to injuries to the person resulting naturally and proximately from those acts. The Code section does not apply to the wilful torts of a minor under seventeen which are directed against the persons of others and not directed against property. *Bell v. Adams,*111 Ga. App., post; *Vort v. Westbrook,*221 Ga.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
Home1992 Treaties and Agreements...Ireland (92-1118) – Protocol to Trade and Investment Treaty of January 21, 1950

# 									Ireland (92-1118) – Protocol to Trade and Investment Treaty of January 21, 1950							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

November 18, 1992

Trade and Investment

Protocol supplementing treaty of January 21, 1950. Signed at Washington June 24, 1992; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate July 30, 1992 (Treaty Doc. 102-35, 102d Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate August 11, 1992; Ratified by the President October 13, 1992; Ratifications exchanged at Dublin November 18, 1992; entered into force November 18, 1992.
Download Agreement						 [749 KB]

Tags

Investment TreatiesIrelandTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
#### Amidi ZUBERI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-1226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 23, 1981.

Mark C. Menser, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.