alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

CAMERON HAMILTON LAWRENCE,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 2D22-2309

September 6, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Frederick P. 

Mercurio, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lydon W. Schultz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Jeremy S. Clark and Tyler K. Vaughn of Clark Law, St. Petersburg, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
§ 493.47 Requirements for a certificate for provider-performed microscopy (PPM) procedures. ( a ) A certificate for PPM procedures is required— ( 1 ) Initially for all laboratories performing test procedures specified as PPM procedures; and
( 2 ) For all certificate of waiver laboratories that intend to perform only test procedures specified as PPM procedures in addition to those tests listed in § 493.15(c).
( b ) HHS will issue a certificate for PPM procedures if the laboratory— ( 1 ) Complies with the requirements of § 493.43; and
( 2 ) Remits the fee for the certificate, as specified in subpart F of this part.
( c ) Laboratories issued a certificate for PPM procedures are subject to— ( 1 ) The notification requirements of § 493.53;
( 2 ) The applicable requirements of this subpart and subparts H, J, K, and M of this part; and
( 3 ) Inspection only under the circumstances specified under §§ 493.1773 and 493.1775, but are not routinely inspected to determine compliance with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section.
( d ) In accordance with subpart R of this part, HHS will initiate suspension, limitation, or revocation of a laboratory's certificate for PPM procedures for failure to comply with the applicable requirements set forth in this subpart. HHS may also impose certain alternative sanctions. In addition, failure to meet the requirements of this subpart may result in suspension of all or part of payments under Medicare and Medicaid, as specified in subpart R of this part.
( e ) A certificate for PPM procedures is valid for a period of no more than 2 years.
[58 FR 5223, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 20045, Apr. 24, 1995; 68 FR 3702, Jan. 24, 2003; 68 FR 50723, Aug. 22, 2003]
#### The Belsena Coal Mining Co., Appellant, *v.*The Liberty Dredging Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion to strike out the amended answer as sham, and for other relief.

Gould & Wilkie (John L. Wilkie and H. Winslow Thayer, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles Goldzier, for respondent.

O’Dwyer, J.

The motion was properly denied. The first paragraph of the defendant’s amended answer contains a good general denial of the allegations contained in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the plaintiff’s complaint, *i. e.,*the sale, delivery and promise to pay.

The second defense is good if sustained by proof, and, inasmuch as the plaintiff’s allegations are in issue upon the denial thereof, should not be disposed of upon affidavits.

The plaintiff has been guilty of laches. The motion to strike out the answer was made five months after the service of the answer, and after a reply and notice of trial had been served.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Oloott, J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00271 - CV No. 07 - 23 - 00 328 - CV MAURO E. GARZA & EVERETT HOLDINGS, LLC , A PPELLANT S V. JULIA PEREZ , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 57th District Court Bexar County, Texas 1 Trial Court No . 2023 - CI - 08559 , Honorable Tina Torres , Presiding



### October 2 , 2023 ORDER OF SEVERANCE AND DISMISSAL Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellants, Mauro E. Garza and Everett Holdings, LLC (“Garza and Everett”) , appeal from the trial court’s Order Denying Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss (TCPA) . Appellee, Julia Perez, has filed a cross - appeal. Now pending before the Court

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

is Garza and Everett ’s motion to dismiss Perez ’s appeal for want of jurisdict ion. We grant the motion. The trial court signed the interlocutory order on June 14, 2023 . A notice of appeal was , therefore, due within twenty days after the order was signed, by July 5, 2023. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 4.1(a), 26.1(b) ( appellate deadline fo r a ccelerated appeals) , 28.1(a) (accelerating appeals from interlocutory orders) . Garza and Everett timely filed a notice of appeal on June 30 , 2023. As such, any notice of cross - appeal by Perez was du e within fourteen days after the filing of Garza and Everett’s notice of appeal, by July 14, 2023 . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.1(d) (“if any party timely files a notice of appeal, another party may file a notice of appeal within the applicable period [. . .] or 14 days after the first filed notice of appeal, whichever is later” ) . Perez did not file a notice of appeal until August 15, 2023. On August 29, 2023, Garza and Everett filed a motion to dismiss Perez ’s untimely cross appeal. Perez has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss to date . A timel y notice of appeal is essential to invoking this C ourt ’ s jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 – 17 (Tex. 1997). N otwithstanding that the Texas Supreme Court has directed us to construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right of appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to e ffect the purpose of those rules, we are prohi bited from enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 616 – 17; T EX . R. A PP . P . 2 (providing that appellate courts may not suspend a rule ’ s operation or order a different procedure to alter the time for perfecti ng an appeal).3

For these reasons , we sever Perez’s cross - appeal into appellate cause number 07 - 2 3 - 00 328 - CV and dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). Garza and Everett ’ s appeal shall continue to disposition under appellate cause number 07 - 23 - 002 71 - CV . It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 26, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1595

Lower Tribunal No. F96-38947

________________

Givanni Parks,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Givanni Parks, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Craig A. Tooman, Executive Vice President Finance and Chief
Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
                  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities 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.

                                       By: /s/Craig A. Tooman
                                           -------------------
                                           Craig A. Tooman
                                           Executive Vice President Finance and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)


         September 27, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 447.507 Identification of inhalation, infusion, instilled, implanted, or injectable drugs (5i drugs). ( a ) *Identification of a 5i drug.* A manufacturer must identify to CMS each covered outpatient drug that qualifies as a 5i drug.
( b ) *Not generally dispensed through a retail community pharmacy.* A manufacturer must determine if the 5i drug is not generally dispensed through a retail community pharmacy based on the percentage of sales to entities other than retail community pharmacies. ( 1 ) A 5i drug is not generally dispensed through a retail community pharmacy if 70 percent or more of the sales (based on units at the NDC-9 level) of the 5i drug, were to entities other than retail community pharmacies or wholesalers for drugs distributed to retail community pharmacies.
( 2 ) A manufacturer is responsible for determining and reporting to CMS whether a 5i drug is not generally dispensed through a retail community pharmacy on a monthly basis.
|   |                         | BISNISHome |  Subscribe | Feedback | Contact Us | Site Map |       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        LATEST NEWS COUNTRY REPORTS INDUSTRY REPORTS  LEADS  EVENTSPUBLICATIONSSOURCES OF FINANCECUSTOMS CORNERU.S. STATE EXPORTSUSEFUL LINKS
*BISNIS* the NIS market resource at the USA Trade Center   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Order filed, August 3, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00474

- CV

____________ HARRIS COUNTY SHERIF F'S CIVIL SERVICE CO MMISSION , Appellant

V.

LOUIS GUTHRIE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 35811



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due July 2, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On July 2, 2012, this court granted the court reporters request for extension of time to file
the reco rd until August 1, 2012. To date, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the first request,
the court GRANTS your second request and issue s the following order.

We order Kim berly Kidd , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before August 31, 2012

. No further extension will be entertained absentexceptional circumstances . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for

ensuring that t he appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Kimberly Kidd does not timely file the record as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file
the record.

PER CURIAM
#### Daniel S. McALLISTER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. PP-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 9, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1980.

*941Joseph R. Moss, and Jack W. Hunter, Jr., Cocoa, for appellant.

Robert A. Chastain, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

MILLS, Chief Judge.

Daniel S. McAllister appeals from a decision of the Florida Career Service Commission upholding his five-day suspension by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. We reverse.

The reason given for McAllister’s suspension was insubordination, but the evidence does not support that charge. The relevant facts are that McAllister, an inspector, was asked by his supervisor to attend a hearing to be-conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture concerning suspension or revocation of a federal license of another state inspector. (He held dual licensing, as did McAllister.) When McAllis-ter refused the oral request to attend and insisted on being given a written order, the supervisor prepared a handwritten note. McAllister still refused and was suspended.

Insubordination has been defined by this Court in *Muldrow v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Duval County,*189 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), as a disobedience of orders which is “. . . generally synonymous with contumacious, which indicates persistent, willful or overt defiance of authority . . . Inherent in a finding of insubordination, however, is a finding that the orders given were within the authority of the person giving them. While we agree with the position of the Commission that a state employee is under an obligation to follow orders of his supervisor to attend hearings in line of duty, in the instant case we find that the supervisor of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services had no authority to require McAllister to attend a federal hearing held by federal authorities concerning a matter between the United States Department of Agriculture and another individual. The position of the Department that McAllis-ter’s attendance at the hearing was “related work as required,” as provided for in his job description, is without merit because the hearing was not related to his state duties and the Department itself was not actually a party to the proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Namibian Independence Day

# 									Namibian Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 21, 2022

On behalf of the Government and the people of the United States of America, I congratulate the Namibian people as you celebrate 32 years of independence.

The United States and Namibia share an enduring commitment to democratic principles, human rights, and good governance.  Our strong partnership promoting the health of our citizens underpins our cooperation to combat the ongoing challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

In the coming year, we hope to expand our bilateral ties in priority areas such as the climate crisis, green economic growth, and increased commerce and trade.  As we build a stronger bilateral relationship, we are committed to partnering with Namibia to combat the greatest challenges of our time for the benefit of both our peoples.

I send best wishes for peace, prosperity, and a joyous Independence Day.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsNamibiaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 483.400 Basis and purpose.

This subpart implements section 1905 (c) and (d) of the Act which gives the Secretary authority to prescribe regulations for intermediate care facility services in facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities or persons with related conditions.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

672 

CA 10-02265 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT P. MEEGAN, JR., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF BUFFALO 

POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION AND 

BUFFALO POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., 

PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, 

 

V ORDER

BYRON W. BROWN, AS MAYOR OF CITY OF BUFFALO, 

DANIEL DERENDA, AS ACTING COMMISSIONER OF 

POLICE, AND CITY OF BUFFALO, 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (JULIE P. APTER OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

LAW OFFICES OF W. JAMES SCHWAN, BUFFALO (W. JAMES SCHWAN OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R.

Glownia, J.), entered March 3, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 75. The order granted petitioners’ application for a

preliminary injunction. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
###### 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.

#### § 457.1180 Program specific review process: Notice.

A State must provide enrollees and applicants timely written notice of any determinations required to be subject to review under § 457.1130 that includes the reasons for the determination, an explanation of applicable rights to review of that determination, the standard and expedited time frames for review, the manner in which a review can be requested, and the circumstances under which enrollment and benefits may continue pending review.

[89 FR 22877, Apr. 2, 2024]
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of the registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names
under which such subsidiaries do business as of December 31, 2007. The financial statements of all subsidiaries are included in the consolidated statements of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary.



| | 1. |  | The Palmetto Bank, a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Palmetto Capital Inc., a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2015

Mr. James Allyn

4535 Beverly Glen Drive

Oceanside, CA 92056

Dear Mr. Allyn :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption. It

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n ot Process Your Request

We received your July 21, 2015

, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA− 2015

− 4764 , but

we are unable to process your request any further as a result of a discrepancy in your petition

. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent in your petition. For us to consider the request any

further, you must clarify the name of the petitioner and resubmit a revise d petition to your

docket

.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions

, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Divisio n
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Craig A. McCollam, Chief FinancialOfficer of Dionex Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006, and to whichthis Certification is attached (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.By: /s/ Craig A. McCollam
HomeStatus Lists for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...NATO Status Lists

# 						NATO Status Lists					

39 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20222019201620082003199819971995199419931981197119701964196019591954195219511949

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationSweden

Select a Release TypeDepositary – Treaty Affairs

          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		01. North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington April 4, 1949	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		02. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, done at London June 19, 1951	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		03. Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, National Representatives and International Staff, done at Ottawa September 20, 1951	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		04. Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey, done at London October 17, 1951	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		05. Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Paris August 28, 1952	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		06. Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, done at Paris October 23, 1954	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		07. Agreement to Supplement the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces with Respect to Foreign Forces Stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany and Protocol of Signature, done at Bonn August 3, 1959	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		08. Agreement to Implement Paragraph 5 of Article 45 of the Agreement to Supplement the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces with Respect to Foreign Forces Stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany, done at Bonn August 3, 1959	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		09. Agreement for the Mutual Safeguarding of Secrecy of Inventions Relating to Defense and for Which Applications for Patents Have Been Made, done at Paris September 21, 1960	   
          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		10. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, done at Paris June 18, 1964	   

1234next page

Back to Top
HomeUruguay

# Uruguay

83 items

        -    Media Note  		Acting Assistant Secretary Chung Travels to Colombia, Argentina, and Uruguay	  April 10, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uruguay	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Uruguay	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		The JUST Act Report: Uruguay	  July 29, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Uruguay	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Uruguay	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uruguay	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs  		Wine – Mutual Acceptance Agreement – Notification of Withdrawal of Interpretive Declaration; Uruguay, December 23, 2019	   
        -    Report  		Uruguay	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Uruguay	  June 21, 2019 

previous page1…456789next page

Back to Top