alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 436.112 Individuals who would be eligible for cash assistance except for increased OASDI under Pub. L. 92-336 (July 1, 1972). The agency must provide Medicaid to individuals who meet the following conditions: ( a ) In August 1972, the individual was entitled to OASDI and— ( 1 ) He was receiving cash assistance; or
( 2 ) He would have been eligible for cash assistance if he had applied, and the Medicaid plan covered this optional group; or
( 3 ) He would have been eligible for cash assistance if he were not in a medical institution or intermediate care facility, and the Medicaid plan covered this optional group.
( b ) The individual would currently be eligible for cash assistance except that the increase in OASDI under Pub. L. 92-336 raised his income over the limit allowed under the cash assistance program. This includes an individual who— ( 1 ) Meets all current requirements for cash assistance except for the requirement to file an application; or
( 2 ) Would meet all current requirements for cash assistance if he were not in a medical institution or intermediate care facility, and the Medicaid plan covers this optional group.
§ 447.88 Options for claiming FFP payment for section 1920A presumptive eligibility medical assistance payments. ( a ) The FMAP rate for medical assistance payments made available to a child during a presumptive eligibility period under section 1920A of the Act is the regular FMAP under title XIX, based on the category of medical assistance; that is, the enhanced FMAP is not available for section 1920A presumptive eligibility expenditures.
( b ) States have the following 3 options for identifying Medicaid section 1920A presumptive eligibility expenditures and the application of payments for those expenditures: ( 1 ) A State may identify Medicaid section 1920A presumptive eligibility expenditures in the quarter expended with no further adjustment based on the results of a subsequent actual eligibility determination (if any).
( 2 ) A State may identify Medicaid section 1920A presumptive eligibility expenditures in the quarter expended but may adjust reported expenditures based on results of the actual eligibility determination (if any) to reflect the actual eligibility status of the individual, if other than presumptively eligible.
( 3 ) A State may elect to delay submission of claims for payments of section 1920A presumptive eligibility expenditures until after the actual eligibility determination (if any) is made and, at that time identify such expenditures based on the actual eligibility status of individuals if other than presumptively eligible. At that time, the State would, as appropriate, recategorize the medical assistance expenditures made during the section 1920A presumptive eligibility period based on the results of the actual eligibility determination, and claim them appropriately.
[65 FR 33622, May 24, 2000]
§ 440.168 Primary care case management services. ( a ) Primary care case management services means case management related services that— ( 1 ) Include location, coordination, and monitoring of primary health care services; and
( 2 ) Are provided under a contract between the State and either of the following: ( i ) A PCCM who is a physician or may, at State option, be a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or certified nurse-midwife.
( ii ) A physician group practice, or an entity that employs or arranges with physicians to furnish the services.
( b ) Primary care case management services may be offered by the State— ( 1 ) As a voluntary option under the State plan; or
( 2 ) On a mandatory basis under section 1932 (a)(1) of the Act or under section 1915(b) or section 1115 waiver authority.
[67 FR 41115, June 14, 2002]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Khmer New Year 2023

# 									Khmer New Year 2023							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 12, 2023

On behalf of the people and Government of the United States of America, I wish all Cambodians celebrating Khmer New Year good health, peace, and good fortune.

Khmer New Year is time of reflection. As we review our accomplishments over the past year and the important work that remains, we look forward to continuing to engage with our Cambodian friends and partners to further strengthen people-to-people ties between the United States and the Kingdom of Cambodia.

May the Khmer New Year bring joy, prosperity, and opportunity for all Cambodians across the world.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsCambodiaOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 438.60 Prohibition of additional payments for services covered under MCO, PIHP or PAHP contracts.

The State agency must ensure that no payment is made to a network provider other than by the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP for services covered under the contract between the State and the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP, except when these payments are specifically required to be made by the State in Title XIX of the Act, in 42 CFR chapter IV, or when the State agency makes direct payments to network providers for graduate medical education costs approved under the State plan.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Appellate case name: John Acosta v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00151

- C R

Trial court case number: 1243560

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris Cou nty

The Court has determined that additional briefing may be appropriate for

resolution of this case. The Court requests that the parties file supplemental briefs

addressing Okonkwo v. State , No. PD

- 0207

- 12 (Tex. Crim. App. May 15, 2013), and its

applica tion to the above

- referenced case.

Each party’s supplemental brief shall not exceed five pages in length. The

supplemental briefs are due no later than Friday

, May 31 , 2013

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: s/Harvey Brown

X Acting individually ☐ Acting for the Court

Date: May 1 5 , 2013
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi,  Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mori, and Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Cho

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi,  Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mori, and Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Cho							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

October 25, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met today in Tokyo with Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa, Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mori Takeo, and Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Cho Hyundong to discuss trilateral and global cooperation. Deputy Secretary Sherman, Foreign Minister Hayashi, Vice Foreign Minister Mori, and First Vice Foreign Minister Cho shared concerns about recent ballistic missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Deputy Secretary Sherman welcomed Japan and the Republic of Korea’s continuing support for Ukraine, and those present expressed concerns about Russia’s irresponsible rhetoric regarding nuclear weapons. The four discussed deepening trilateral cooperation in the Indo-Pacific across a range of issues. They also spoke about the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateJapanOffice of the SpokespersonSouth Korea

Back to Top
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14653

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00009-AW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH ALLEN CULP, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(June 2, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-14653 Date Filed: 06/02/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Keith Allen Culp appeals his sentence of 180 months of imprisonment for 

possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). Culp 

argues that he lacks sufficient predicate offenses to qualify as an armed career 

criminal. Culp argues that his prior conviction for resisting arrest with violence, 

Fla. Stat. § 843.01, does not count as a violent crime. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(2)(B). He also argues, for the first time, that his prior conviction for 

trafficking amphetamine, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(f), is not a serious drug offense. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A). We affirm.

We review de novo the classification of a prior conviction as a violent felony 

or as a serious drug offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act. United States v. 

Deshazior, 882 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 2018) (violent felony); United States v. 

Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2017) (serious drug offense).

The district court correctly enhanced Culp’s sentence under the Act. The 

district court did not decide whether Culp’s prior conviction for resisting an officer 

with violence counted as a violent felony because he conceded that it “made no 

difference one way or another” in the light of his convictions for drug offenses. But

the district court did not err because, as Culp acknowledges, our precedent holds 

that resisting an officer with violence categorically qualifies as a violent felony

under the Act. See United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). 

And Culp does not dispute that his two prior convictions for selling 

Case: 19-14653 Date Filed: 06/02/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), constitute

serious drug offenses. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1266–68 (11th 

Cir. 2014) (“[s]ection 893.13(1) of the Florida Statutes is . . . a ‘serious drug 

offense’”). Because Culp has three predicate offenses, we need not decide whether 

his prior conviction for trafficking amphetamine also qualifies as a serious drug 

offense.

We AFFIRM Culp’s sentence.

Case: 19-14653 Date Filed: 06/02/2020 Page: 3 of 3
# C_2006048EN.01001101.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

---

Action brought on 18.11.2005 by Commission against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-405/05)

(2006/C 48/22)

Language of the case: English

An action against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18.11.2005 by the Commission, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan, Xavier Lewis and Hubert van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December 2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December 2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1).

1

| 2. | order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the failure by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure adequate treatment is provided for the entirety of the waste water discharges produced in the agglomerations of Bangor, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne, Lerwick, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh, Brighton, Portrush, Donaghdee and Bideford/ Northam is in breach of Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the directive. Furthermore, the failure to control substantial new developments in the agglomerations of Portrush, Newtonabbey, Bangor, Londonderry and Larne or to ensure that their approval is accompanied by mitigating measures is exacerbating the breaches of the aforementioned articles of the Directive in these five agglomerations.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment OJ L 135, 30.05.1991 P. 40 - 52

1

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 299

To amend title 32, United States Code, to provide that performance of

honor guard functions at funerals for veterans by members of the National Guard may be recognized as a Federal function for National

Guard purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 32, United States Code, to provide that

performance of honor guard functions at funerals for

veterans by members of the National Guard may be

recognized as a Federal function for National Guard

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 299 IH

1 SECTION 1. FEDERAL STATUS OF SERVICE BY NATIONAL

2 GUARD MEMBERS AS HONOR GUARDS AT FU3 NERALS OF VETERANS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Chapter 1 of title 32, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing new section:

7 ‘‘§ 113. Honor guard functions at funerals for veter8 ans

9 ‘‘Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by

10 the Secretary concerned, the performance of honor guard

11 functions by members of the National Guard at funerals

12 for veterans of the armed forces may be treated by the

13 Secretary concerned as a Federal function for which ap14 propriated funds may be used. Any such performance of

15 honor guard functions at funerals may not be considered

16 to be a period of drill or training otherwise required.’’.

17 (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such

18 chapter is amended by adding at the end the following

19 new item:

‘‘113. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans.’’.

20 (b) FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995.—Section 113

21 of title 32, United States Code, as added by subsection

22 (a), does not authorize additional appropriations for fiscal

23 year 1995. Any expenses of the National Guard by reason
3

•HR 299 IH

1 of such section during fiscal year 1995 may be paid from

2 existing appropriations available for the National Guard.

Æ
§ 456.232 Evaluation criteria for continued stay. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) The committee develops written medical care criteria to assess the need for continued stay.
( b ) The committee develops more extensive written criteria for cases that its experience shows are— ( 1 ) Associated with high costs;
( 2 ) Associated with the frequent furnishing of excessive services; or
( 3 ) Attended by physicians whose patterns of care are frequently found to be questionable.
§ 441.182 Maintenance of effort: Computation. ( a ) For expenditures for inpatient psychiatric services for individuals under age 21, in any calendar quarter, FFP is available only to the extent that the total State Medicaid expenditures in the current quarter for inpatient psychiatric services and outpatient psychiatric treatment for individuals under age 21 exceed the sum of the following: ( 1 ) The total number of individuals receiving inpatient psychiatric services in the current quarter times the average quarterly per capita non-Federal expenditures for the base year; and
( 2 ) The average non-Federal quarterly expenditures for the base year for outpatient psychiatric services for individuals under age 21.
( b ) FFP is available for 100 percent of the increase in expenditures over the base year period, but may not exceed the Federal medical assistance percentage times the expenditures under this subpart for inpatient psychiatric services for individuals under age 21.
§ 412.517 Revision of LTC-DRG group classifications and weighting factors. ( a ) CMS adjusts the classifications and weighting factors annually to reflect changes in— ( 1 ) Treatment patterns;
( 2 ) Technology;
( 3 ) Number of discharges; and
( 4 ) Other factors affecting the relative use of hospital resources.
( b ) Beginning in FY 2008, the annual changes to the LTC-DRG classifications and recalibration of the weighting factors described in paragraph (a) of this section are made in a budget neutral manner such that estimated aggregate LTCH PPS payments are not affected.
( c ) Beginning in FY 2016, the annual recalibration of the weighting factors described in paragraph (a) of this section is determined using long-term care hospital discharges described in § 412.522(a)(2) (or that would have been described in such section had the application of the site neutral payment rate been in effect at the time of the discharge).
[67 FR 56049, Aug. 30, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 26991, May 11, 2007; 80 FR 49768, Aug. 17, 2015]
§ 438.370 Federal financial participation (FFP). ( a ) FFP at the 75 percent rate is available in expenditures for EQR (including the production of EQR results) and the EQR-related activities set forth in § 438.358 performed on MCOs and conducted by EQROs and their subcontractors.
( b ) FFP at the 50 percent rate is available in expenditures for EQR-related activities conducted by any entity that does not qualify as an EQRO, and for EQR (including the production of EQR results) and EQR-related activities performed by an EQRO on entities other than MCOs.
( c ) Prior to claiming FFP at the 75 percent rate in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the State must submit each EQRO contract to CMS for review and approval.
#### James Harley SPELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismisssed.
§ 801.303 Transactions that are not pilot program covered transactions. Transactions that are not pilot program covered transactions include, without limitation: ( a ) An investment by a foreign person in a U.S. business that manufactures a technology that it utilizes in connection with its activity in one or more pilot program industries, but does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. Example. Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to acquire a four percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B, a U.S. business that operates in a pilot program industry. Pursuant to the terms of the investment, a designee of Corporation A will have the right to observe the meetings of the board of directors of Corporation B. Corporation B does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop any critical technology. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction.
( b ) An investment by a foreign person in a pilot program U.S. business that does not afford the foreign person any of the rights specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of § 801.209 or any control rights. Example. The Committee concluded all action under section 721 with respect to a pilot program covered transaction in which Corporation A, a foreign person, acquired a four percent, non-controlling equity interest with board observer rights in Corporation B, a pilot program U.S. business. One year later, Corporation A proposes to acquire an additional five percent equity interest in Corporation B, which would result in Corporation A holding a nine percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B. The proposed investment does not afford Corporation A any additional rights with respect to Corporation B, including the rights specified in § 801.209. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction.
( c ) A transaction that results or could result in control by a foreign person of a U.S. business that is not a pilot program U.S. business.
Example. Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to purchase all of the shares of Corporation B, which is a U.S. business that operates in a pilot program industry but does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop any critical technology. As the sole owner, Corporation A will have the right to elect directors and appoint other primary officers of Corporation B. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction. It is, however, a covered transaction (see § 800.301 of this chapter).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 21, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 21, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0129. GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ v. DOMINIC SHANE WITT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

22CV01341
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on United States – Brazil Bilateral Dialogue on Migration Policies, Humanitarian Issues, and Refugee Protection

# 									Joint Statement on United States – Brazil Bilateral Dialogue on Migration Policies, Humanitarian Issues, and Refugee Protection							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 29, 2024

The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America and Brazil on the occasion of the Bilateral Dialogue between the United States and Brazil on Migration Policies, Humanitarian Issues, and Refugee Protection.

*Begin Text*

The Governments of Brazil and the United States of America met in Washington, D.C., on Monday, April 29, 2024, for their first Bilateral Dialogue on the topic of Migration Policies, Humanitarian Issues, and Refugee Protection. The dialogue highlighted our countries` shared goals of advancing access to international protection and safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration.

The delegations shared best practices and identified common opportunities and challenges to their migration and refugee responses. This includes Brazil`s Operation Welcome, which has helped the country receive and integrate over 500,000 Venezuelans since 2018; expanding and strengthening access to regular pathways as a meaningful alternative to irregular migration; a presentation on the Safe Mobility Initiative; responsibility sharing; the importance of supporting host communities, cities and municipalities, civil society, and the private sector in refugee and migrant integration; and ways to advance shared priorities in key multilateral migration and refugee fora.

The historic number of people on the move in the Western Hemisphere requires continued partnership and collaboration. This United States-Brazil Bilateral Dialogue on Migration Policies, Humanitarian Issues, and Refugee Protection reflected our shared recognition that no single country can meet the challenges and opportunities of migration and protection alone. The two governments committed to continued dialogue and future collaboration on this key shared policy priority.

*End Text*

Tags

BrazilBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsHumanitarian AidMigrationOffice of the SpokespersonRefugees

Back to Top