alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Hamby WEBB v. STATE.

8 Div. 370.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1980.

Donald R. White, Moulton, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Sandra M. Solowiej, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

BOWEN, Judge.

The defendant’s initial conviction for second degree murder arising out of a vehicular homicide was reversed for the failure of the District Attorney to prove the proper predicate for the admission of the results of the chemical analysis of the defendant’s blood. *Webb v. State,*378 So.2d 756 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 378 Ala. 758 (Ala.1979).

On this appeal, the defendant again contends that the State did not lay the proper predicate for the admission of the test results. In *Webb,*378 So.2d at 757, we set forth the predicate required to be established before the admission of any test result.

> “In order to be valid the chemical analysis must have been performed (1) ‘according to methods approved by the state board of health’ and (2) ‘by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the state board of health for this purpose’. Alabama Code Section 32-5-193(b) 1975. In addition the state must prove (3) that the particular test method used has been approved and adopted by officials of the law enforcement agency which administered the test, Alabama Code Section 32-5-192(a), *Estes v. State,*358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala.1978), and (4) where a blood test is involved, that ‘only a physician, registered nurse or duly licensed clinical laboratory technologist or clinical laboratory technician acting at the request of a law-enforcement officer’ withdrew blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein. Alabama Code Section 32-5 193(c) (1975); *Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc.,*344 So.2d 515 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 522 (Ala.1977).”

*1239With deliberate and measured caution the State proved each and every element of the predicate.

This was the only issue raised on appeal. We have searched the record for error and found none. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
13 CA ADC § 2267 Page 1

13 CCR s 2267
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13 , s 2267

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF

REGULATIONS
TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES
DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR V EHICLE FUELS
ARTICLE 1. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE
SUBARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE SOLD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1996 This database is current through 12/26/2003, Register

2003, No. 52.

s 2267. Exemptions for Gasoline Used in Test Programs.

The executive officer shall consider and grant test pr ogram exemptions from the requirements of this subarticle in accordance with section 2259.

< General Materials (GM)

- References, Annotations, or

Tables >

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43013.1, 43018, 43101 and 43831, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411 , 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975). Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39002, 39003, 39010, 39500, 39515, 39516, 41511, 43000, 43013, 43013.1, 43016, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control Dis trict, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975).

HISTORY

1. New section filed 11

- 16

- 92; operative 12

- 16

- 92 (Register 92, No. 47).

2. Amendment of section heading, section and Note filed 2

- 15

- 95; operative 2

- 15

- 95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 7).

3. Amendment of Note filed 8

- 3

- 2000; operative 9

- 2

- 2000 (Register 2000, No. 31).

13 CA ADC s 2267
END OF DOCUMENT
###### 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.

#### § 457.228 Cost allocation.

A State plan must provide that the single or appropriate CHIP Agency will have an approved cost allocation plan on file with the Department in accordance with the requirements contained in subpart E of 45 CFR part 95. Subpart E also sets forth the effect on FFP if the requirements contained in that subpart are not met.
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.

§ 457.1015 Cost-effectiveness. ( a ) *Definition.* For purposes of this subpart, “cost-effective” means that the State's cost of purchasing family coverage that includes coverage for targeted low-income children is equal to or less than the State's cost of obtaining coverage under the State plan only for the eligible targeted low-income children involved.
( b ) *Cost comparisons.* A State may demonstrate cost-effectiveness by comparing the cost of coverage for the family to the cost of coverage only for the targeted low-income children under the health benefits package offered by the State under the State plan for which the child is eligible.
( c ) *Individual or aggregate basis.* ( 1 ) The State may base its demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of family coverage on an assessment of the cost of family coverage for individual families, done on a case-by-case basis, or on the cost of family coverage in the aggregate.
( 2 ) The State must assess cost-effectiveness in its initial request for a waiver and then annually.
( 3 ) For any State that chooses the aggregate cost method, if an annual assessment of the cost-effectiveness of family coverage in the aggregate reveals that it is not cost-effective, the State must assess cost-effectiveness on a case-by-case basis.
( d ) *Reports on family coverage.* A State with a waiver under this section must include in its annual report pursuant to § 457.750, the cost of family coverage purchased under the waiver, and the number of children and adults, respectively, covered under family coverage pursuant to the waiver.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...New Partnership with Mexico to Explore Semiconductor Supply Chain Opportunities

# 											New Partnership with Mexico to Explore Semiconductor Supply Chain Opportunities									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 28, 2024

The U.S. Department of State will partner with the Government of Mexico to explore opportunities to grow and diversify the global semiconductor ecosystem under the International Technology Security and Innovation (ITSI) Fund, created by the CHIPS Act of 2022.  This partnership will help create a more resilient, secure, and sustainable global semiconductor value chain.

The initial phase includes a comprehensive assessment of Mexico’s existing semiconductor ecosystem and regulatory framework, as well as workforce and infrastructure needs.  Key stakeholders in the Mexican ecosystem, such as state governments, educational institutions, research centers and companies will participate in this analysis in conjunction with Mexico’s Secretariat of Economy.  The insights gained from the assessment will serve as the basis for potential future joint initiatives to strengthen and grow this critical sector.

The United States and Mexico are key partners in ensuring the global semiconductor supply chain keeps pace with the digital transformation underway worldwide.  Manufacturing of essential products ranging from vehicles to medical devices relies on the strength and resilience of the semiconductor supply chain.  This collaboration between the United States and Mexico underscores the significant potential to expand Mexico’s semiconductor industry to the benefit of both nations and will build on existing cooperation under the bilateral High-Level Economic Dialogue and trilateral North American Leaders Summit process.  This partnership will also support the work already underway to bolster regional competitiveness in semiconductors, including workforce development, in the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity.

In August 2022, President Biden signed the CHIPS Act of 2022, a U.S. law that appropriated new funding to boost domestic manufacturing and research of semiconductors in the United States.  The CHIPS Act of 2022 created the ITSI Fund, which provides the U.S. Department of State with $500 million ($100 million per year over five years, starting in Fiscal Year 2023) to promote the development and adoption of secure and trustworthy telecommunications networks and ensure semiconductor supply chain security and diversification through new programs and initiatives with our allies and partners.

More information about the ITSI Fund: The U.S. Department of State International Technology Security and Innovation Fund.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsMexicoOffice of the SpokespersonScience, Technology, and InnovationUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

Back to Top
#### § 433.302 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth the requirements and procedures under which States have 1 year following discovery of overpayments made to providers for Medicaid services to recover or attempt to recover that amount before the States must refund the Federal share of these overpayments to CMS, with certain exceptions.

[77 FR 31511, May 29, 2012]
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.182 Medicaid payment. ( a ) Under a PACE program agreement, the State administering agency makes a prospective monthly payment to the PACE organization of a capitation amount for each Medicaid participant.
( b ) The monthly capitation amount is negotiated between the PACE organization and the State administering agency, and the amount, or the methodology used to calculate the amount, is specified in the PACE program agreement. The amount represents the following: ( 1 ) Is less than the amount that would otherwise have been paid under the State plan if the participants were not enrolled under the PACE program.
( 2 ) Takes into account the comparative frailty of PACE participants.
( 3 ) Is a fixed amount regardless of changes in the participant's health status.
( 4 ) Can be renegotiated on an annual basis.
( c ) The PACE organization must accept the capitation payment amount as payment in full for Medicaid participants and may not bill, charge, collect, or receive any other form of payment from the State administering agency or from, or on behalf of, the participant, except as follows: ( 1 ) Payment with respect to any applicable spenddown liability under §§ 435.121 and 435.831 of this chapter and any amounts due under the post-eligibility treatment of income process under § 460.184.
( 2 ) Medicare payment received from CMS or from other payers, in accordance with § 460.180(d).
( d ) State procedures for the enrollment and disenrollment of participants in the State's system, including procedures for any adjustment to account for the difference between the estimated number of participants on which the prospective monthly payment was based and the actual number of participants in that month, are included in the PACE program agreement.
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 25677, June 3, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NORWEST
FINANCIAL INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         139,184
<SECURITIES>                                 1,203,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,270,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,984
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         322,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,516,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      8,367,059<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,855
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,561,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,516,207
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,005,765
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               855,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               304,274
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             485,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                360,272
<INCOME-TAX>                                   121,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   238,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NORWEST FINANCIAL INC. HAS A NON-CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET
SO THIS INFORMATION IS UNAVAILABLE.
<F2>INCLUDES $3.1 BILLION OF SHORT-TERM LOANS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Nicholas Konidaris,certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro ScientificIndustries, Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: December 22,  2004                         |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/ Nicholas Konidaris                           |   |
| Nicholas  Konidaris                              |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
The operation of small UASs, weighting less than 5lbs., conducted in 

the strict conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of 

safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, 

including exempting the applicant from the requirements of Part 21 

and allowing commercial operations. These lightweight aircraft operate 

at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a sterile environment and, 

as a result, are far safer than ground than conventional operations 

conducted with piston helicopters or fixed wing aircraft operating in 

relatively close proximity to the ground and people. 

The primary market of interest for James C Suss, a licensed REALTOR 

in the State of Georgia with Harry Norman, Realtors, and owner of The 

Edit Haus LLC utilizing sUASs is the marketing of real property, and 

the second is the education of real estate professionals. It is 

anticipated that the airborne image capture process will be 

accomplished exclusively in day time VFRenvironments.

To capture the highest quality of resolution the majority of airborne 

data collections will take place during the 10:00am–4:00pm window. 

Summary 

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the 

Reform Act of 2012 – size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, 

proximity to airports and populated areas and operation within visual 

line of sight and national security–provide more than adequate 

justification for the grant of the requested exemptions allowing 

commercial operation of applicant’s sUAS in the real estate industry 

pursuant to the Operating Manual appended hereto. 

James C Suss, a licensed REALTOR in the State of Georgia with Harry 

Norman, Realtors, and owner of The Edit Haus LLC is eagerly standing 

by to support the FAA and sUAS community in its quest to establish 

proper regulations and protocols for the safe introduction of unmanned 

aircraft into the national airspace.

Sincerely,

James C Suss 

Harry Norman, Realtors

The Edit Haus LLC

1727 Brandon Lee Way SW

Marietta, Georgia 30008

678-357-7683
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          11,290
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             125
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,150
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     49,304
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,392
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        105,461
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,184
<DEPOSITS>                                     178,325
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,959
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,561
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,729
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 200,184
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,354
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,620
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   679
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,653
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,103
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    826
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,075
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (370)
<NET-INCOME>                                       705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.61
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,744
<LOANS-PAST>                                       156
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,532
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,733
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,234
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,471
<RECOVERIES>                                       621
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,609
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,609
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### Robert Alan BOALT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. AC-251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1981.

Robert J. Fogan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Bracey v. State,*356 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
# Implementation Of New International Chancery Center Parking Procedures

## Post navigation

Implementation Of New International Chancery Center Parking Procedures