alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MARK WHITE Attorney General 

# The Attorney General of Texas June 25, 1980

Honorable Robert B.Hall Texas Board of Examiners in the Fitting &Dispensing of Hearing Aids Penthouse Apartments, Suite 105 Guadalupe Street Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No. ML+198 Re: Whether a licensee may fill a prescription for a hearing aid from a physician without further testing ofthe individual’s hearing acuity.
Dear Mr.Halh You have requested our opinion as to whether a person licensed to dispense hearing aids may fill a prescription for a hearing aid from a physician without further testing the individual’s hearing acuity. Section (a)(?‘)of article 4566-1.15,V.T.C.S. provides: (7) before any sale of a hearing aid shall be consummated, the person purchasing the hearing aid must have his hearing tested at an examination conducted in person by the licensee. Article 4566-1.19,V.T.C.S., states that nothing inthe act applies to: (3) [plhysicians and surgeons duly licensed by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and qualified to practice inthe State ofTexas. You ask whether an individual licensed by the Board may validly disregard the testing requirement imposed by article 4566 1.15(a)(7),V.T.C.S., when he is presented with a prescription for ahearing aid from aphysician exempted from the statute byarticle 4566-1.19(3),V.T.C.S. It is clear that the exception is applicable only to physicians and surgeons, and not to persons who act at their instruction. A statute that is plain and unambiguous should be construed according to its literal meaning. Brazce River Authority v. Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99, 109(Tex. 1961);Board of s 180S.W.2d 906?909
‘(Tex. 1944). Thus, if an individual licensed to fit and dispense hearing aids isHonorable Robert B.Hall - Page Two (Mw-198)

not included within one of the exceptions of article 4566-1.19, V.T.C.S., he must comply with the testing requirement. In the situation you pose, the licensee may not fill a prescription for a hearing aid from a physician without first testing the hearing of the purchaser of the hearing aid. SUMMARY

A person licensed to dispense hearing aids may not fill a prescription for a hearing aid from aphysician without first testing the indiviciral’s hearing.

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TED L. HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byRick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMPTTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman BobGammage Susan Garrison BobGauss Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood

P. 642
HomeOffice of International Religious FreedomRemarks & Releases...IRFBA Chair’s Statement on the Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

# 									IRFBA Chair’s Statement on the Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine							

Other Release

February 24, 2023

As members, friends, and observers of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA), we condemn without reservation Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its destruction of civilian objects, infrastructure, and cultural and sacred heritage sites.

We note with grave concern the growing evidence of atrocities committed during the war, including: attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure; extrajudicial killings; torture; or other cruel, inhuman, or and degrading treatment or punishment; rape and other sexual violence; forcible deportation of Ukrainian civilians, including children, to Russia and the wilful killing of prisoners of war.

We stand in solidarity with Ukraine, our fellow IRFBA member, and commend the courage and determination of its people.

We note the severe violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in Russian controlled regions, including Crimea and Donbas, with the targeting of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Catholics, evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslim minorities, and we recall that international humanitarian law provides protections for cultural property during armed conflict.

We recall the statement on freedom of religion or belief and cultural heritage from the FoRB Ministerial Conference held in London in July 2022. We note that Russian forces have destroyed or damaged hundreds of religious buildings and places of worship in Ukraine.

We therefore:

Call on Russia to immediately withdraw all forces and equipment from Ukraine and respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, and to respect the individually held human right to freedom of religion or belief at all times.

Pledge to support the collection of evidence for use in national and international courts.

Call on all nations to support Ukraine by providing assistance to those affected, assisting with the reconstruction of Ukraine, including its cultural and religious sites, and providing technical and material assistance to protect sacred sites during hostilities.

We continue to call on all Russians, whatever their religion or belief, to stand up for peace.”

**Signatories**

*United Kingdom (Chair) & Czech Republic (Vice Chair), with Australia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Taiwan, Ukraine*

Tags

Office of International Religious FreedomRussiaUkraine

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.94 Value of services of nonpaid workers. ( a ) *Principle.* The value of services in positions customarily held by full-time employees performed on a regular, scheduled basis by individuals as nonpaid members of organizations under arrangements between such organizations and a provider for the performance of such services without direct remuneration from the provider to such individuals is allowable as an operating expense for the determination of allowable cost subject to the limitation contained in paragraph (b) of this section. The amounts allowed are not to exceed those paid others for similar work. Such amounts must be identifiable in the records of the institutions as a legal obligation for operating expenses.
( b ) *Limitations: Services of nonpaid workers.* The services must be performed on a regular, scheduled basis in positions customarily held by full-time employees and necessary to enable the provider to carry out the functions of normal patient care and operation of the institution. The value of services of a type for which providers generally do not remunerate individuals performing such services is not allowable as a reimbursable cost under the Medicare program. For example, donated services of individuals in distributing books and magazines to patients, or in serving in a provider canteen or cafeteria or in a provider gift shop, would not be reimbursable.
( c ) *Application.* The following illustrates how a provider would determine an amount to be allowed under this principle: The prevailing salary for a lay nurse working in Hospital A is $5,000 for the year. The lay nurse receives no maintenance or special perquisites. A sister working as a nurse engaged in the same activities in the same hospital receives maintenance and special perquisites which cost the hospital $2,000 and are included in the hospital's allowable operating costs. The hospital would then include in its records an additional $3,000 to bring the value of the services rendered to $5,000. The amount of $3,000 would be allowable if the provider assumes obligation for the expense under a written agreement with the sisterhood or other religious order covering payment by the provider for the services.
§ 425.216 Actions prior to termination. ( a ) *Pre-termination actions.* ( 1 ) If CMS concludes that termination of an ACO from the Shared Savings Program is warranted, CMS may take one or more of the following actions prior to termination of the ACO from the Shared Savings Program. ( i ) Provide a warning notice to the ACO regarding noncompliance with one or more program requirements.
( ii ) Request a CAP from the ACO.
( iii ) Place the ACO on a special monitoring plan.
( 2 ) Nothing in this part, including the actions set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, negates, diminishes, or otherwise alters the applicability of other laws, rules, or regulations, including, but not limited to, the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.*), the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45 *et seq.*).
( b ) *Corrective action plans.* ( 1 ) The ACO must submit a CAP for CMS approval by the deadline indicated on the notice of violation. ( i ) The CAP must address what actions the ACO will take to ensure that the ACO, ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers or other individuals or entities performing functions or services related to the ACO's activities or both correct any deficiencies and comply with all applicable Shared Savings Program requirements.
( ii ) The ACO's performance will be monitored and evaluated during and after the CAP process.
( 2 ) CMS may terminate the participation agreement if the ACO fails to submit, obtain approval for, or implement a CAP, or fails to demonstrate improved performance upon completion of the CAP.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32839, June 9, 2015]
§ 408.104 Reinstatement procedures. ( a ) *Request for payment.* If the conditions of § 408.102(a) (1) and (2) are met, SSA sends written notice requesting the enrollee to pay, within 30 days, all premiums due through the month in which the enrollee appealed the termination.
( b ) *Reinstatement of coverage.* If SSA receives the requested payment within 30 days, it sets aside the termination and reinstates the enrollee's coverage without interruption.
#### § 417.490 Renewal of contract.

A contract with an HMO or CMP is renewed automatically for the next 12-month period unless CMS or the HMO or CMP decides not to renew, in accordance with § 417.492.

[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny FRAIZER.

No. 54902.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1974.

In re: Johnny Fraizer applying for Writ of Certiorari, Review, Mandamus and Stay Order.

Application denied. The application before us does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. I am further of the opinion that a subpoena to the expert must be honored at any rate and without advance deposit.

TATE, J.,

concurs in Barham, J.’s opinion.
- Home
- About Human Trafficking
- Interagency Task Force
- Legal Authorities and Mandates
- Federal Funding
- Survivor Leadership
- Resources

HomeFederal Response on Human Trafficking...Resources

# Resources

        - ********National Human Trafficking Hotline********
        - Call: ******1-888-373-7888******
        - SMS:  233733 (Text “HELP” or “INFO”)

### 

## 

## Federal Resources for Trafficking Victims

The federal government provides several resources available to assist human trafficking victims.

Learn More**→**

----

## 

## Federal Anti-Trafficking Resources

A comprehensive and searchable list of federal government anti-trafficking resources.

Learn More**→**

----

## 

## Public Awareness & Training

Outreach and education can help identify human trafficking cases, build public support for governments and communities to take action, and ultimately help prevent human trafficking.

Learn More**→**

----

## 

## Ways You Can Help

Anyone can join in the fight against human trafficking.  Learn more about ways you can help combat human trafficking in your community.

Learn More**→**

 

----

## 

## National Action Plan

The National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking outlines a three-year comprehensive approach to combat human trafficking, including actions to strengthen prosecution of traffickers, enhance victim protections, and prevent the crime from occurring within our borders and abroad.

Read the National Action Plan**→**

Back to Top
# C_2005271EN.01001101.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-31/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC - Networks and services - Electronic communications - Common regulatory framework - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 271/20)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-31/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kűris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

French Republic

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required by Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required by Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.

1

---
§ 426.523 Withdrawing a complaint regarding an NCD under review. ( a ) *Circumstance under which an aggrieved party withdraws a complaint regarding an NCD.* An aggrieved party who filed a complaint regarding an NCD may withdraw the complaint before the Board issues a decision regarding that NCD. The aggrieved party may not file another complaint concerning the same coverage determination for 6 months.
( b ) *Process for an aggrieved party withdrawing a complaint regarding an NCD.* To withdraw a complaint regarding an NCD, the aggrieved party who filed the complaint must send a written withdrawal notice to the Board (see § 426.500) and CMS. Supplementing an acceptable complaint with new evidence does not constitute a withdrawal of a complaint, as described in § 426.503.
( c ) *Actions the Board must take upon receiving a notice announcing the intent to withdraw a complaint regarding an NCD* — ( 1 ) *NCD reviews involving one aggrieved party.* If the Board receives a withdrawal notice regarding an NCD before the date the Board issued a decision regarding that NCD, the Board issues a decision dismissing the complaint under § 426.544 and informs the aggrieved party that he or she may not file another complaint to the same coverage determination for 6 months.
( 2 ) *NCD reviews involving joint complaints.* If the Board receives a notice from an aggrieved party who is named in a joint complaint withdrawing a complaint regarding an NCD before the date the Board issued a decision regarding that NCD, the Board issues a decision dismissing only that aggrieved party from the complaint under § 426.544. The Board continues the NCD review if there is one or more aggrieved party who does not withdraw from the joint complaint.
( 3 ) *Consolidated NCD reviews.* If the Board receives a notice from an aggrieved party who is part of a consolidated NCD review withdrawing a complaint regarding an NCD before the date the Board issued a decision regarding that NCD, the Board removes that aggrieved party from the consolidated NCD review and issues a decision dismissing that aggrieved party's complaint under § 426.544. The Board continues the NCD review if there is one or more aggrieved party who does not withdraw from the joint complaint.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 45 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 79 -4 50 -2 83
SANDRA SHATTUCK, a.k .a. San dr a Pri et o Lo pe z d e Alv it es , a.k .a. Bil li e So ccer , , Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s.PER CURI AM:

San dr a Sh at tu ck , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof P eru , pet it io ns th is Co urt fo r rev ie w of th e d eci si on of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s t ha t af firm edhe r or de r of
rem ov al forha vi ng fal se ly repre se nt edth atsh e was a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen . 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(3 )(D). Sh at tu ckco nc ed edbe fo re t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e th atsh e is rem ov ab le forrem ai ni ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s l on ge r th anpe rm it te d, i d. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (B), an d s he fai le d, b efo re t he Bo ard , to ch al le ng e th e fi nd in g o f th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e th atsh e was rem ov ab le forha vi ng be enco nv ic te d o f a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e wit hi n fi ve y ears of h er ad m is si on to th is co un try, id. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ). The o nl y form of r el ie f th atwou ldpe rm itSh at tu ckto rem ai n i n th e Uni te d S ta te s i s an ad jus tm en t o f he r st atus fro m anali ento a pe rm an en t res id en t. The Bo ardfou ndth atSh at tu ckwas “ st atut or il y in el ig ib le to ad

jus t st atus ,” id . §§ 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ), 12 55 (a), an d S ha ttuc k d oe s n otch al le ng e th at de te rm in at io n. We den y

Sh at tu ck ’s pet it io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED .

2
#### § 423.454 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply—

*Employer-sponsored group prescription drug plan* means, prescription drug coverage offered to retirees who are Part D eligible individuals under employment-based retiree health coverage. For purposes of this subpart, employment-based retiree health coverage is such coverage (as defined in § 423.882) provided through a Medicare Part D plan, or for which a plan sponsor could qualify for payments under subpart R of this part.

*State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (SPAP)* means a State program that meets the requirements described under § 423.464(e)(1).

[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 1882, Jan. 12, 2012]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20535 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Luis Martinez, also known as Angel Rodriguez, true name Angel Rodriguez

- Estrada, also known as Jose Martinez

- Hernandez, also known as Martinez Raul Garcia, also known as Alejandro Luna Rico, al so known as Jose Martin ez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 708

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Martinez

Hernandez 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). Martinez

- Hernandez h a s not filed a response. We

* 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 June 16 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20535 Document: 00513080316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 20535

2 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 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-20535 Document: 00513080316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         JURISDICTION
NAME                    OF ORGANIZATION         PARENT                  LINE OF BUSINESS
----                    ---------------         ------                  ----------------
<S>                     <C>                     <C>                     <C>
America West                                    America West
Airlines, Inc.          Delaware                Holdings Corporation    Airline

                                                America West
The Leisure Company     Delaware                Holdings Corporation    Travel

                                                America West
AWHQ LLC                Arizona                 Holdings Corporation    Administrative

National Leisure
Group Inc.              Delaware                The Leisure Company     Travel

TVS LLC                 Arizona                 The Leisure Company     Travel
</TABLE>
#### § 426.406 *Ex parte* contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) communicates in any way with the ALJ on any substantive matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.