alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics

HomeBureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs...Key Topics – Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

# 									Key Topics – Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs							

#### **To learn more about ECA’s exchange programs and initiatives visit our websites:**

        - ECA Bureau Website  Highlights the Bureau’s history, impact, leadership, and key initiatives. Also includes communications guidance and resources for press and recipient organizations.
        - Exchanges  A search engine for ECA-sponsored exchange program opportunities for both domestic and foreign audiences.
        - ExchangeAlumni  Provides resources and networking opportunities for past and current participants of U.S. government-sponsored exchange programs.
        - BridgeUSA  Hosts information, including rules and regulations, for Exchange Visitor Program participants, sponsors, host families, and employers.
        - EducationUSA   Features information for international students about studying in the United States. For U.S. higher education professional, the website also hosts recruitment and resources for meeting campus internationalization goals.
        - Study Abroad   Aggregates foreign and U.S. government-sponsored resources and financial aid resources for U.S. students interested in studying abroad.
        - Cultural Property  Presents photo guides for import restricted cultural objects. The guides illustrate the types of items that cannot enter the U.S. without proper documentation, such as an export certificate.
        - American English   Offers materials and resources for English teachers and students to use both inside and outside of the classroom.
        - American Spaces  Provides information on the Department’s cultural and information centers and a directory of locations worldwide.
        - TechCamp  Promotes the bureau’s TechCamp program.

#### **Media:**

Press Inquiries: ECA_Press@state.govFollow the ECA Bureau on Twitter: @ECAatStateFollow the Assistant Secretary on Twitter: @ECA_ASFollow ECA Bureau on Facebook and InstagramWatch ECA Bureau videos on YouTubeRead about ECA on DipNoteECA Highlights: **Check out the latest news from the bureau**

Tags

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...International Religious Freedom Day – 25th Anniversary of IRFA

# 									International Religious Freedom Day – 25th Anniversary of IRFA							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 27, 2023

As we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), we reaffirm the United States’ strong and enduring commitment to advancing religious freedom for everyone, everywhere.  This instrumental legislation provided a range of new tools to give voice to the persecuted, to empower advocates, and to promote religious freedom around the world.  Freedom of religion or belief is a bedrock American value.  Twenty-five years ago, when President Clinton signed the International Religious Freedom Act into law, he noted, “When we promote religious freedom, we also promote freedom of expression, conscience, and association, and other human rights.”  The right to freedom of religion or belief, including the freedom to think and worship in our own way, to follow our consciences, and to change our beliefs is inextricably linked to so many rights we hold dear.  When freedom of religion or belief is at risk, those other freedoms are jeopardized as well.  Some 80 percent of the world’s population still cannot live their lives in accordance with their most basic values and beliefs without serious restrictions or risk, and that has consequences for us all.

Our Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Rashad Hussain, and his team have been traveling the globe to address discriminatory laws and policies, advocate for those who’ve been unfairly targeted, and promote tolerance and respect.  We are joined in these efforts by a coalition of 37 countries – the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.  People of all faiths and beliefs deserve to live free from fear and oppression.  The State Department and the entire United States government will continue standing for the right of every single person on Earth to worship and believe as they choose.

Tags

Office of International Religious FreedomOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated balance sheet and statements of income
filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the 
quarter ended January 31, 1998 and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such report on Form 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         908,067
<SECURITIES>                                   370,530
<RECEIVABLES>                                  615,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    336,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,743,232
<PP&E>                                       2,818,077        
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,063,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,276,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          566,111
<BONDS>                                      2,449,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           849
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,260,628  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,276,925
<SALES>                                      1,297,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,308,608  
<CGS>                                          363,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  924,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (43,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (9,971)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (33,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33,047)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
§ 456.238 Time limits for final decision and notification of adverse decision. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) The committee makes a final decision on a beneficiary's need for continued stay and gives notice under § 456.237 of an adverse decision within 2 working days after the assigned continued stay review date, except as required under paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) If the committee makes an adverse final decision on a beneficiary's need for continued stay before the assigned review date, the committee gives notice under § 456.237 within 2 working days after the date of the final decision.
Summary of Director' Compensation



 Exhibit 10.16 
 Summary of Directors’ Compensation 
 In 2008, non-employee directors were paid $17,000 per
quarter ($68,000 per year). In addition, in accordance with the 2008 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Company, non-employee directors received, for service as a director, shares of Albemarle common stock equal to the amount
of the annual retainer fee divided by the closing price per share of Albemarle common stock on the Annual Meeting date, which was $37.40. The number of shares granted was rounded up to the nearest 25-share increment. For 2008, the number of shares
granted as of the Annual Meeting date was reduced by 800 to account for the shares each director received during the first and second quarters of 2008 pursuant to the prior plan. 
 Non-employee directors also received an additional amount based on their committee service. Audit Committee members received $2,250 per quarter ($9,000
per year), and the Chairman of the Audit Committee received an additional $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year). Executive Compensation Committee members received $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Executive Compensation
Committee received an additional $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year). Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility members received $1,250 per quarter ($5,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility
Committee received an additional $750 per quarter ($3,000 per year). Health, Safety and Environment members received $1,250 per quarter ($5,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Safety, Health, and Environment Committee received an additional $750
per quarter ($3,000 per year). Our Lead Independent Director received $50,000 in 2008 in lieu of committee fees. In addition, we reimbursed each of our non-employee directors for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board
and Board Committee meetings, and we matched up to $2,500 for director charitable giving. Employee members of the Board of Directors were not paid separately for service on the Board. 
  

 97
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur DAVIS.

No. 80-K-2469.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans. No. 276-826.

Writ denied.

MARCUS, BLANCHE, and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
§ 423.642 Notice of contract determination. ( a ) When CMS makes a contract determination under § 423.641, it gives the PDP sponsor written notice.
( b ) The notice specifies the— ( 1 ) Reasons for the determination; and
( 2 ) The Part D sponsor's right to request a hearing.
( c ) *CMS-initiated terminations* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Except as provided in (c)(2) of this section, CMS mails notice to the Part D plan sponsor 45 calendar days before the anticipated effective date of the termination.
( 2 ) *Exception.* If a contract is terminated in accordance with § 423.509(b)(2)(i) of this part, CMS notifies the Part D plan sponsor of the date that it will terminate the Part D plan sponsor's contract.
( d ) When CMS determines that it will not authorize a contract renewal, CMS mails the notice to the Part D sponsor by August 1 of the current contract year.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 68733, Dec. 5, 2007; 75 FR 19823, Apr. 15, 2010; 79 FR 29965, May 23, 2014]
#### § 447.342 [Reserved]
§ 438.708 Termination of an MCO, PCCM or PCCM entity contract. A State has the authority to terminate an MCO, PCCM or PCCM entity contract and enroll that entity's enrollees in other MCOs, PCCMs or PCCM entities, or provide their Medicaid benefits through other options included in the State plan, if the State determines that the MCO, PCCM or PCCM entity has failed to do either of the following: ( a ) Carry out the substantive terms of its contract.
( b ) Meet applicable requirements in sections 1932, 1903(m), and 1905(t) of the Act.
§ 441.478 Qualifications of providers of personal assistance. ( a ) States have the option to permit participants, or their representatives, if applicable, to hire any individual capable of providing the assigned tasks, including legally liable relatives, as paid providers of the PAS identified in the service plan and budget.
( b ) Participants, or their representatives, if applicable, retain the right to train their workers in the specific areas of personal assistance needed by the participant and to perform the needed assistance in a manner that comports with the participant's personal, cultural, and/or religious preferences. Participants, or their representatives, if applicable, also have the right to access other training provided by or through the State so that their PAS providers can meet any additional qualifications required or desired by participants, or participants' representatives, if applicable.
( c ) Participants, or their representatives, if applicable, retain the right to establish additional staff qualifications based on participants' needs and preferences.
41230.

#### SCARBROUGH v. PORTRESS.

Argued March 3, 1965

Decided June 18, 1965.

Per Curiam.

A judgment of the superior court affirming an order of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation dismissing a plea in abatement filed before the board is not a final judgment and is not subject to appeal to this court by a bill of exceptions. *Code Ann.*§ 6-701 and annotations, catchword “Abatement.” This is true even though the judgment affirmed a ruling dismissing the plea on the ground that the board did not have jurisdiction. Neither the dismissal by the board nor the affirmance of the dismissal by the court was a final disposition of the cause nor would it have been if the l’uling had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error.

The exceptions to the judgment of the superior court being predicated on a matter which is not appealable to this court, the bill of exceptions is

*Dismissed.*

*Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*

*876
      *Pauline E. Cousins,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. D. Burns, Jr.,*contra.
#### GEORGE E. BURNAP v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 605; 252 U. S., 512.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The power to remove from public office or employment is, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, an incident of the power to appoint, and the power to suspend is an incident of the power of removal.

In sec. 169, Rev. Stats., which authorizes each “ head of a department ” to employ clerks, messengers, laborers, etc., and other employees, “ head of a department ” means the Secretary in charge of a great division of the executive branch, who is a member of the Cabinet, and does not include heads of bureaus or lesser divisions.

The term “ employ ” as thus used is the equivalent of appoint.

The terms “ clerks ” and “ other employees ” as used in Rev. Stats., sec. 169, includes persons filling positions which require technical skill, learning, and professional training.

Whether the incumbent is an officer or an employee is determined by the manner in which Congress has specifically provided for the creation of the several positions, their duties and appointment thereto.

Although the office of Public Buildings and Grounds is part of the Bureau of the Chief of Engineers, in the War Department, appointment of a landscape architect (whose employment is authorized by general appropriation acts) is not to be made by the Secretary of War under the general authority of Rev. Stats., see. 169, but by the Chief of Engineers, under the specific authority given him by sec. 1799 to employ in such office and in and about the public buildings and grounds under his control such persons as may be appropriated for from year to year.

The power to remove such landscape architect is with the Chief of Engineers as an incident of the power of -appointment, and is not affected by the fact that the appointment, acquiesced in by the Chief of Engineers, was made without authority by the Secretary.

In the absence of regulations prescribed by the President through the War Department under Rev. Stats., sec. 1797, and assuming the regulations governing the classified civil service as applied to the Engineer Department at large do not affect the office of Public Buildings and Grounds, the power of the Chief of Engineers to remove the landscape architect is to *517be exercised in the manner prescribed by the act of August 24, 1912, c. 389, sec. 6, 37 Stat., 555, and Civil Service Rule XII.

The landscape architect in the office of Public Buildings and Grounds is not an officer but an employee.

Mr. Justice BRANdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 19, 1920.
#### § 426.566 Board decision.

A decision by the Board constitutes a final agency action and is subject to judicial review. CMS may not appeal a Board decision.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO OTONIEL AGUIRRE 

BARRIENTOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71596 

Agency No. A070-939-778 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Otoniel Aguirre Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 9 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71596 

application for asylum.

1

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions 

of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the 

extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes 

and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Even assuming the credibility of Aguirre Barrientos’ testimony, the BIA did 

not err in finding that Aguirre Barrientos did not establish membership in a 

cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he 

applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a 

common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially 

distinct within the society in question’”) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. 

Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 

(9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not 

constitute a particular social group). 

1

 Aguirre Barrientos did not challenge the agency’s denial of withholding of 

removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, special rule 

cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure.
3 15-71596 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Aguirre 

Barrientos otherwise failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account 

of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft 

or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); 

Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal 

retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, 

Aguirre Barrientos’ asylum claim fails. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 456.657 Computation of reductions in FFP. ( a ) For each level of care specified in a provider agreement, and for each quarter for which a satisfactory showing is not made, the amount of the reduction in FFP is computed as follows: ( 1 ) For each level of care, the number of beneficiaries who received services in facilities that did not meet the requirements of this subpart is divided by the total number of beneficiaries who received services in facilities for which a showing was required under this subpart. If any of the requirements specified in § 456.652(a)(1) through (4) were not met for any beneficiary in a facility, the reduction will be computed on the total number of beneficiaries in that facility at the level of care in question.
( 2 ) The fraction obtained in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is multiplied by one-third.
( 3 ) The product obtained in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is multiplied by the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).
( 4 ) The product obtained in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is multiplied by the agency payments for longstay services furnished during the quarter at that level of care.
( b ) If any of the data required to compute the amount of the reduction in FFP are unavailable, the Administrator will substitute an estimate. If the agency determines the exact data to the satisfaction of the Administrator, the estimate may later be adjusted. If the number of beneficiaries in individual facilities is not available, the fraction specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be estimated, for each level of care, by dividing the number of facilities in which the requirements were not met by the total number of facilities for which a showing is required under this subpart.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10445 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GERARDO RAMIREZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 93

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Ramirez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez h a s not filed a response. W e have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10445 Document: 00513472017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 10445

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRA NTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10445 Document: 00513472017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-50459

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE GOODALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(P-97-CR-10)

_________________________________________________________________

May 12, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully considered appellant’s contention

that the marijuana obtained from appellant’s vehicle should be

suppressed because the federal agents lacked reasonable suspicion

to stop appellant’s car on January 5, 1997. Having reviewed the

district court’s comprehensive memorandum opinion in light of the

briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the informative

arguments of counsel, we find no reversible error of fact or law.
The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.