alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3553 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 400
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3553

                          [Report No. 104-754]

 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations 
                   for the Federal Trade Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 1996

 Mr. Oxley (for himself and Mr. Manton) introduced the following bill; 
            which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

                             August 2, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations 
                   for the Federal Trade Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Trade Commission 
Reauthorization Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 25 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57c) is 
amended by striking ``and not to exceed'' and inserting ``not to 
exceed'' and by inserting before the period the following: ``; not to 
exceed $107,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and not to exceed 
$111,000,000 for fiscal year 1998''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 400

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3553

                          [Report No. 104-754]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations 
                   for the Federal Trade Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3512 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3512

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish limitations on 
        taxpayer-financed compensation for defense contractors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 1996

 Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish limitations on 
        taxpayer-financed compensation for defense contractors.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON COMPENSATION PAID UNDER DEFENSE CONTRACTS.

    (a) Limitation.--Section 2324 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (m); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (k) the following new 
        subsection (l):
    ``(l) Limitation on Compensation.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the head of an 
        agency may not obligate funds to pay a contractor under a 
        contract with the agency for the costs of compensation with 
        respect to the services of any one individual to the extent 
        that the total amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal year 
        to that individual exceeds $200,000.
            ``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of determining the 
        limitation on payment to a contractor under paragraph (1), all 
        contracts entered into by the contractor with the agencies 
        covered by this chapter and with all executive agencies (if 
        any) shall be treated as one contract, and the $200,000 
        limitation with respect to the services of an individual in a 
        fiscal year shall be allocated among the contracts in the 
        manner prescribed in regulation by the Administrator for 
        Federal Procurement Policy.
            ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    ``(A) The term `compensation' includes salaries, 
                bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options and 
                payouts, certified indirect costs, restructuring costs, 
                and performance-based payments.
                    ``(B) The term `executive agency' has the meaning 
                provided by section 3 of the Federal Property and 
                Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 472).''.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (l) of section 2324 of title 10, 
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), applies to contracts 
entered into after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 483.160 Requirements for training of paid feeding assistants. ( a ) Minimum training course contents. A State-approved training course for paid feeding assistants must include, at a minimum, 8 hours of training in the following: ( 1 ) Feeding techniques.
( 2 ) Assistance with feeding and hydration.
( 3 ) Communication and interpersonal skills.
( 4 ) Appropriate responses to resident behavior.
( 5 ) Safety and emergency procedures, including the Heimlich maneuver.
( 6 ) Infection control.
( 7 ) Resident rights.
( 8 ) Recognizing changes in residents that are inconsistent with their normal behavior and the importance of reporting those changes to the supervisory nurse.
( b ) Maintenance of records. A facility must maintain a record of all individuals, used by the facility as feeding assistants, who have successfully completed the training course for paid feeding assistants.
[68 FR 55539, Sept. 26, 2003]
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 431.950 Purpose.

This subpart requires States and providers to submit information and provide support to Federal contractors as necessary to enable the Secretary to produce national improper payment estimates for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

[82 FR 31184, July 5, 2017]
#### Ex parte Jerry Wayne ANDREWS.

78-438.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 20, 1979.

ALMON, Justice.

Writ Denied.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### Louis Stern, Appellant, *v.*The Hoffman Brewing Co., Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, fifth district, New York city, dismissing the complaint.

This action was brought to recover damages for injury to an overcoat of the plaintiff, resulting from a bite of a horse belonging to the defendant.

Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellant.

Ashbel P. Fitch, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the alleged damage was caused by the malicious conduct of a domestic animal, and the plaintiff failed to establish previous knowledge of vicious inclination.

According to the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff, the horses of the defendant were upon a sidewalk, at large and unattended, and, in passing, one of them jumped and bit a piece out of his coat. They were admittedly where they had no right to be, and where, presumably, they would not have been, if attended.Under such circumstances, failure to prove *scienter*will not relieve the owner of responsibility, “ the vice of the animal being an essential fact only when, but for it, the conduct of the owner *795would be free from fault.” Dickson v. McCoy, 89 N. Y. 400, 401.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 430.70 Notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing. The Administrator mails the State a notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing that— ( a ) Specifies the time and place for the hearing;
( b ) Specifies the issues that will be considered;
( c ) Identifies the presiding officer; and
( d ) Is published in the Federal Register.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELIZABETH SNYDER, as the daughter and authorized agent of

Judith Goldstein

, Appellant,

v.

MERIDIAN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1144

[ March 3, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; G. Joseph Curley, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No.

5020 1 8CA012381XXXXMB(AA)

.

Peter J. Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez and Vilma Mar tinez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

G ROSS

, J.

Elizabeth Snyder disagreed with appellee Meridian Park Village Limited Partnership concerning her access to her 92

- year

- old mother. She moved for an injunction pursuant to sections 400. 0 22 and 400. 0 23, Florida Statutes (2019). 1 The case was resolved by a written settlement agreement on May 8, 2019.

Then came the COVID

- 19 pandemic.

Florida’s G overnor issued Executive Order 20

- 52 and the Division of Emergency Management entered Emergency Order 20

- 006. One effect of the Orders was to curtail Snyder’s access to her mother as set forth in the settlement agreement. Snyder filed an emergency motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

1 Although Snyder referenced sections 400.422 and 400.423, Florida Statutes, in her request for an injunction, it appears that she meant to refer to sections

400.022 and 400.023

.2 We have carefully reviewed the thoughtful order of the circuit court and conclude that it acted reasonably to address Snyder’s concerns amid the constraints imposed by the pandemic.

We do not reach an issue Snyder r aised on appeal

— that the G overnor lacked the authority to suspend the rights provided by s ection 400.022

— because she did not raise this issue in the circuit court.

Affirmed

.

L EVINE , C.J.

, and A RTAU , J., concur.

* * *

Not final un til disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Digicorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay Rifkin,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




August
                17, 2007
            
            
            /s/
                Jay RifkinJay
                Rifkin
              Principal
                Financial Officer
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Joint Statement of the U.S.-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue

# 											Joint Statement of the U.S.-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue									

Office of the Spokesperson

May 13, 2024

Friday, Department of State Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Elizabeth Richard and Pakistan’s Additional Foreign Secretary for the UN and OIC Ambassador Syed Haider Shah co-chaired the U.S.-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue.

The Counterterrorism Dialogue underscores the cooperation between the United States and Pakistan in addressing the most pressing challenges to regional and global security, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ISIS-Khorasan. Discussions centered on the counterterrorism landscape in the region, with a focus on areas of mutual interest. U.S. and Pakistani senior officials emphasized the importance of expanded counterterrorism collaboration and capacity building, including exchanges of technical expertise and best practices, investigative and prosecutorial assistance, provision of border security infrastructure and training, including the United States training of more than 300 police and frontline responders since the last U.S.-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue in March 2023, and strengthening multilateral engagement such as in the UN and the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

The United States and Pakistan recognize that a partnership to counter ISIS-Khorasan, TTP, and other terrorist organizations will advance security in the region and serve as a model of bilateral and regional cooperation to address transnational terrorism threats. Both governments resolved to increase communication on these topics and continue collaboration to detect and deter violent extremism through whole-of-government approaches. The Counterterrorism Dialogue reaffirms the United States’ and Pakistan’s shared determination to contribute to both regional and global security and stability.

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismBureau of Near Eastern AffairsCountering TerrorismOffice of the SpokespersonPakistan

Back to Top
# C_2005205EN.01003201.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/32

---

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/05)

(2005/C 205/58)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision approving his career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision approving his career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003,

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges manifest error of assessment on account of the fact that he was not given the assessment ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ for his performance, although he had attained, and even exceeded, his objectives despite particular problems encountered in this work-place.

The applicant then refers to alleged inconsistency between, on the one hand, the remarks made in the contested report which demonstrate improvement in that he exceeded his objectives and, on the other, the marks awarded him which were below average.

Last, the applicant alleges lack of a relevant statement of reasons for the contested decision.

---
###### 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.

#### § 457.50 State plan.

The State plan is a comprehensive written statement, submitted by the State to CMS for approval, that describes the purpose, nature, and scope of the State's CHIP and gives an assurance that the program is administered in conformity with the specific requirements of title XXI, title XIX (as appropriate), and the regulations in this chapter. The State plan contains all information necessary for CMS to determine whether the plan can be approved to serve as a basis for Federal financial participation (FFP) in the State program. The Secretary will periodically specify updated requirements on the format of State plan through a process consistent with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

[81 FR 86463, Nov. 30, 2016]
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.

§ 457.60 Amendments. A State may seek to amend its approved State plan in whole or in part at any time through the submission of an amendment to CMS. The Secretary will periodically specify updated requirements on the format of State plan amendments through a process consistent with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. When the State plan amendment has a significant impact on the approved budget, the amendment must include an amended budget that describes the State's planned expenditures for a 1-year period. A State must amend its State plan whenever necessary to reflect— ( a ) Changes in Federal law, regulations, policy interpretations, or court decisions that affect provisions in the approved State plan;
( b ) Changes in State law, organization, policy, or operation of the program that affect the following program elements described in the State plan: ( 1 ) Eligibility standards, enrollment caps, and disenrollment policies as described in § 457.305.
( 2 ) Procedures to prevent substitution of private coverage as described in § 457.805, and in § 457.810 for premium assistance programs.
( 3 ) The type of health benefits coverage offered, consistent with the options described in § 457.410.
( 4 ) Addition or deletion of specific categories of benefits covered under the State plan.
( 5 ) Basic delivery system approach as described in § 457.490.
( 6 ) Cost-sharing as described in § 457.505.
( 7 ) Screen and enroll procedures, and other Medicaid coordination procedures as described in § 457.350.
( 8 ) Review procedures as described in § 457.1120.
( 9 ) Other comparable required program elements.
( c ) Changes in the source of the State share of funding, except for changes in the type of non-health care related revenues used to generate general revenue.
[66 FR 2670, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 33822, June 25, 2001; 81 FR 86463, Nov. 30, 2016]
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Latvia (22-210.1) – Agreement Concerning Security Assistance and Leahy Ineligible Units

# 									Latvia (22-210.1) – Agreement Concerning Security Assistance and Leahy Ineligible Units							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

February 10, 2022

Foreign Assistance

Signed at Riga February 10, 2022; entered into force February 10, 2022.
Download Agreement						 [320 KB]

Tags

Foreign AssistanceLatviaTreaties

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.306 Release of information. ( a ) The agency must have criteria specifying the conditions for release and use of information about applicants and beneficiaries.
( b ) Access to information concerning applicants or beneficiaries must be restricted to persons or agency representatives who are subject to standards of confidentiality that are comparable to those of the agency.
( c ) The agency must not publish names of applicants or beneficiaries.
( d ) The agency must obtain permission from a family or individual, whenever possible, before responding to a request for information from an outside source, unless the information is to be used to verify income, eligibility and the amount of medical assistance payment under section 1137 of this Act and §§ 435.940 through 435.965 of this chapter. If, because of an emergency situation, time does not permit obtaining consent before release, the agency must notify the family or individual immediately after supplying the information.
( e ) The agency's policies must apply to all requests for information from outside sources, including governmental bodies, the courts, or law enforcement officials.
( f ) If a court issues a subpoena for a case record or for any agency representative to testify concerning an applicant or beneficiary, the agency must inform the court of the applicable statutory provisions, policies, and regulations restricting disclosure of information.
( g ) Before requesting information from, or releasing information to, other agencies to verify income, eligibility and the amount of assistance under § 435.940 through § 435.965 of this subchapter, the agency must execute data exchange agreements with those agencies, as specified in § 435.945(i) of this subchapter.
( h ) Before requesting information from, or releasing information to, other agencies to identify legally liable third party resources under § 433.138(d) of this chapter, the agency must execute data exchanges agreements, as specified in § 433.138(h)(2) of this chapter.
[44 FR 17934, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 7210, Feb. 28, 1986; 52 FR 5975, Feb. 27, 1987; 77 FR 17203, Mar. 23, 2012]
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Cleveland BRYANT, Respondent.

No. 45370.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 5, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 290 So.2d 122.

ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, DEKLE and . OVERTON, JJ., dissent.
§ 455.102 Determination of ownership or control percentages. ( a ) *Indirect ownership interest.* The amount of indirect ownership interest is determined by multiplying the percentages of ownership in each entity. For example, if A owns 10 percent of the stock in a corporation which owns 80 percent of the stock of the disclosing entity, A's interest equates to an 8 percent indirect ownership interest in the disclosing entity and must be reported. Conversely, if B owns 80 percent of the stock of a corporation which owns 5 percent of the stock of the disclosing entity, B's interest equates to a 4 percent indirect ownership interest in the disclosing entity and need not be reported.
( b ) *Person with an ownership or control interest.* In order to determine percentage of ownership, mortgage, deed of trust, note, or other obligation, the percentage of interest owned in the obligation is multiplied by the percentage of the disclosing entity's assets used to secure the obligation. For example, if A owns 10 percent of a note secured by 60 percent of the provider's assets, A's interest in the provider's assets equates to 6 percent and must be reported. Conversely, if B owns 40 percent of a note secured by 10 percent of the provider's assets, B's interest in the provider's assets equates to 4 percent and need not be reported.