alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeChild Protection Compact Partnerships...Child Protection Compact Partnerships – Côte d’Ivoire

# 									Child Protection Compact Partnerships – Côte d’Ivoire							

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

## U.S. – Côte d’Ivoire Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership (2022–2027)

On December 7, 2022, the United States and Côte d’Ivoire signed the **U.S. – Côte d’Ivoire Child Protection Compact Partnership**, a five-year plan developed jointly by our two countries that documents the commitment of our nations to advance and strengthen the efforts of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and civil society organizations in Côte d’Ivoire to combat child trafficking in a victim-centered, coordinated, sustainable, and multi-sectoral approach to support an effective system of justice, prevention, and protection.  This includes the implementation of a victim-centered prevention strategy that addresses targeted risk factors, promotes high-quality, comprehensive victim protection, and investigates, prosecutes, and convicts perpetrators of child trafficking.

The TIP Office will select implementing partners through a competitive solicitation process. The Notice of Funding Opportunity will be posted on the TIP Office’s website:

**https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-funding-opportunities/**

## University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML)

UML will conduct formative research in Côte d’Ivoire to provide rigorous empirical evidence on child trafficking that enables CPC implementing partners to design optimal programs, prioritize domains, and provide a baseline against which the impact of interventions can be measured.  The objectives of this project are (1) prevention through better coordination among service providers; 2) protection through evidence-based efforts to provide victim-centered and trauma-informed services; And (3) greater partnership between government agencies, civil society, community agencies and foreign counterparts.

Tags

Human TraffickingOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
exv10w25







Exhibit 10.25





December 10, 2008



Dear Mr. Hannon,




     This amendment (this “Amendment”) to the letter agreement between NuVasive and you dated
August 5, 2008 (the “Original Agreement”, together with this Amendment, the “Agreement”) confirms
the material compensation terms of your continued employment with NuVasive. Except as otherwise
defined herein, defined terms used herein have the meanings set forth in the Appendix of Defined
Terms attached to the Original Agreement. The terms of the Original Agreement are modified as
follows:




	 	1.	 	A performance bonus, if any, that is payable to you shall be paid no later than
March 15th of the year following the calendar year in which it is earned.
	 
	 	2.	 	The definition of Severance Benefit is amended and restated in its entirety by
the following:





     “‘Severance Benefit’ upon an Involuntary Termination at any time, severance is equal to 100%
of Compensation. Such amount shall be due and payable immediately upon any such termination and
upon the condition that you execute NuVasive’s standard form of release of claims and that such
release of claims becomes effective in accordance with its terms on or prior to the 45th day
following such termination.”



     No other amendments to the Original Agreement are contemplated by this Amendment and all
remaining terms set forth in the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. We look
forward to your continued success with NuVasive.



Truly Yours,




	 	 	 	 	 
	NUVASIVE, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Alexis V. Lukianov
 

Alexis V. Lukianov

	 	/s/ Eileen M. More
 

Eileen M. More
	 	 





I have read and accept the terms of this letter.




	 	 	 
	/s/ Jason Hannon
 

Jason Hannon
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Diplomatic Technology...Leadership – Bureau of Diplomatic Technology

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Diplomatic Technology					

6											Items									

          -  							Fletcher, Dr.  Kelly						Chief Information OfficerBureau of Diplomatic Technology 
          -  							Begnell, Bruce						Principal Deputy Chief Information OfficerBureau of Diplomatic Technology 
          -  							Bowden, Al						Deputy Chief Information Officer, Cyber OperationsBureau of Diplomatic Technology 
          -  							Watson, Ivan						Deputy Chief Information Officer, OperationsBureau of Diplomatic Technology 
          -  							Williams, Laura						Deputy Chief Information Officer for Foreign OperationsBureau of Diplomatic Technology 
          -  							Bennett, Donna S. 						Chief Information Security Officer 

Back to Top
#### HERMAN J. HEIDRICH & SONS, Peninsular Fire Insurance Company, Serviced by: Corporate Group Service, Inc., Appellants, v. James R. FLOYD and Department of Labor and Employment Security, Appellees.

No. AC-355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 11, 1981.

*1297Joseph E. Smith of Miller & Cooper, Orlando, for appellants.

Scott H. Michaud of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for appellees.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal from the deputy commissioner’s order requiring that they provide claimant medical examination and treatment at the Duke University Medical School in Durham, North Carolina. The deputy’s order satisfies the standard for out-of-state medical treatment established by *Decker v. City of West Palm Beach,*379 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and its antecedents, by finding in effect that equally beneficial treatment is not available in Florida. The deputy rightly held that the availability of local treatment facilities does not, in and of itself, conclude the issue; and that the controlling question is whether those facilities can afford equally beneficial treatment. Neither do we find fault with the order’s reference, a predicate for the ultimate finding complained of here, to medical evidence introduced at an earlier hearing, indicating the likely extent of benefits from further local medical efforts. As against appellants’ claim that this reference violates IRC decisions1 precluding consideration of medical evidence introduced at a prior hearing but not at the hearing on the matter now in issue, we find that the evidence referred to was sufficiently elaborated in the deputy’s prior compensation order, which without objection was part of the record in the present proceedings, to support the deputy’s ultimate finding now that out-of-state medical treatment is reasonably required.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

1

. *City of Hallandale v. Jones,*IRC Order 2-3440 (1978); *Davidson v. Nezelek,*IRC Order 2-3229 (1977); *Newman v. Burdine’s Dadeland,*IRC Order 2-2826(P) (July 25, 1975); IRC Order 2-2960 (Feb. 24, 1976), *cert. denied,*339 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1976).
§ 423.129 Resolution of complaints in complaints tracking module. ( a ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this regulation, the following terms have the following meanings: *Assignment date* is the date CMS assigns a complaint to a particular Part D sponsor in the Complaints Tracking Module.
*Complaints Tracking Module* is an electronic system maintained by CMS to record and track complaints submitted to CMS about Medicare health and drug plans from beneficiaries and others.
*Immediate need complaint* is a complaint involving a situation that prevents a beneficiary from accessing care or a service for which they have an immediate need. This includes when the beneficiary currently has enough of the drug or supply to which they are seeking access to last for 2 or fewer days.
*Urgent complaint* is a complaint involving a situation that prevents a beneficiary from accessing care or a service for which they do not have an immediate need. This includes when the beneficiary currently has enough of the drug or supply to which they are seeking access to last for 3 to 14 days.
( b ) *Timelines for complaint resolution* — ( 1 ) *Immediate need complaint* s. The Part D sponsor must resolve immediate need complaints within 2 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 2 ) *Urgent complaints.* The Part D sponsor must resolve urgent complaints within 7 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 3 ) *All other complaints.* The Part D sponsor must resolve all other complaints within 30 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 4 ) *Extensions.* Except for immediate need complaints, urgent complaints, and any complaint that requires expedited treatment under § 423.564(f), if a complaint is also a grievance within the scope of § 423.564 and the requirements for an extension of the time to provide a response in § 423.564(e)(2) are met, the Part D sponsor may extend the timeline to provide a response.
( 5 ) *Coordination with timeframes for grievances, PACE service determination requests, and PACE appeals.* When a complaint under this section is also a grievance within the scope of §§ 423.564 or 460.120, a PACE service determination request within the scope of § 460.121, or a PACE appeal within the definition of § 460.122, the Part D sponsor must comply with the shortest applicable timeframe for resolution of the complaint.
( c ) *Timeline for contacting individual filing a complaint.* Regardless of the type of complaint received, the Part D sponsor must attempt to contact the individual who filed a complaint within 7 calendar days of the assignment date.
[89 FR 30834, Apr. 23, 2024]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3290

To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management for each

of the fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 23, 1996

Mr. COOLEY of Oregon (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. HANSEN, and

Mr. REGULA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Land

Management for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

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

3 That section 318(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Man4 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1748(a)) is amended by

5 striking out ‘‘October 1, 1978’’ and by inserting in lieu

6 thereof ‘‘October 1, 2002’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Dwight SMITH v. CLERK OF COURT, 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE.

No. 65259.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Dwight Smith, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Terrebonne. No. 43,340.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 10.11

June 15, 2010

Mary Dotz

[Address]

Dear Mary,

As you are aware, the company has sold its operating assets. Due to your unique skills and excellent prior performance, you have been personally selected as a member of the Adaptec transition team.

We are pleased to tell you that the Board of Directors of Adaptec has approved a new retention plan for key employees, including yourself.
You will receive a retention bonus (subject to applicable withholdings) of $ 75,000 based on your sustained performance. The retention bonus will be paid on your last work day, September 30, 2010.

If you are terminated without cause by Adaptec prior to your last work date, you will still receive this retention incentive and severance as noted in
your Employment Agreement.

The Board of Directors of Adaptec and the executive team value your contributions, effort, and commitment. We
sincerely hope you remain with Adaptec during this transition.

Sincerely,



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John Quicke        
|                       
|John Quicke            
|Chief Executive Officer
From: Carlson, Sara <Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:00 PM

To: Fortin, Kelly; Land, Eva

Cc: Maness, Katie; Rahul Pendse (rpendse@trinityconsultants.com); Grygar, 

Bill

Subject: Anadarko Permit and Modification Processing Priority

Hey Kelly,

As we discussed in the meeting yesterday Anadarko would like the following priority to the air permit 

applications and modification EPA currently has for Anadarko:

1. Discoverer Spirit (OCS-EPA-R4005-M3) modification

2. Bob Douglas PSD/Title V air permit application

3. BlackHawk and BlackHornet PSD/Title V air permit applications

We understand that although the BlackHawk and BlackHornet (BH/BH) applications were received by 

EPA prior to the others this will put BH/BH behind them. 

Thanks,

Sara Carlson

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

EHS Representative II, Gulf of Mexico

Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

832-636-1273 (office)

832-506-0888 (cell)

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                             161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (268)
<INVENTORY>                                        447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,256
<PP&E>                                             550
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,962
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,015
<SALES>                                          9,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,313
<CGS>                                            7,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (964)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (964)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13011

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00015-WLS-TQL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AL J. HURLEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(October 20, 2014)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER∗

, District

Judge.

 ∗ Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District 

of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-13011 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant Al J. Hurley was a County Commissioner in Sumter County, 

Georgia who was convicted by a jury on one count of attempted extortion and one 

count of federal program bribery. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial, raising the following 

issues:

1. Did the district court err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal 

because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was acting under 

color of official right, that his conduct had a potential to affect interstate 

commerce, and that he intended to be influenced as a County Commissioner 

when he solicited and agreed to accept multiple bribe payments; and 

2. Did the district court err when it denied Hurley’s motion for new trial and 

rejected his claim that the evidence established at trial materially varied from 

the allegations contained in the Indictment?

After de novo review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having 

the benefit of oral argument, we find no error in the proceedings in the district 

court, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s 

May 29, 2013 Order.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13011 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1,976,112
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                         193,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,240,945
<PP&E>                                              819,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                      574,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,486,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               547,479
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                          1,324,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,939,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,486,740
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    475,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (15,238)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (460,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (460,293)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
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 annual report of Circuit Research Labs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rebecca Nation, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                         
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               





| | /s/ Rebecca Nation                                                              
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Rebecca Nation
Chief Financial Officer
Circuit Research Labs, Inc. 
May 15, 2008
Served: March 5, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc., Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd, Virgin Blue 

International Airlines Pty Ltd d/b/a V Australia, Pacific Blue Airlines (NZ) Ltd, and Pacific 

Blue Airlines (AUST) Pty Ltd

under 49 U.S.C. U.S.C. §§ 41308 and 41309 for approval of and 

antitrust immunity for alliance agreements

(Docket DOT-OST-2009-0155)

NOTICE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

In this proceeding, several airlines are seeking antitrust immunity for transpacific service. The 

record is now substantially complete and we establish a procedural schedule, as set forth below.

On July 9, 2009, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd, Virgin Blue International 

Airlines Pty Ltd d/b/a V Australia, Pacific Blue Airlines (NZ) Ltd, and Pacific Blue Airlines 

(AUST) Pty Ltd (collectively, the “Joint Applicants”) filed a joint application requesting approval 

of antitrust immunity for alliance agreements covering foreign air transportation via transpacific 

routings. They also filed a joint motion seeking confidential treatment for supporting documents 

and information, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department’s procedural regulations (14 C.F.R. § 

302.12).

On July 16, we issued a Notice suspending the procedural schedule and providing access to 

documents. On November 25, we issued an Order Requesting Additional Information. The Joint 

Applicants responded to this order by submitting additional documents and information on 

January 15, 2010, which was supplemented on February 24, 2010.

We have finished our initial review of the application and all supporting materials submitted by 

the Joint Applicants. We find that the application is now substantially complete.1 

The procedural schedule is as follows: answers to the application must be filed no later than 21 

calendar days from the issue date of this Notice, and replies must be filed no later than 7 business 

days after the last day for filing an answer. 

 

1 We reserve the right to require the filing of additional information deemed relevant to the proceeding at 

any time. 
2

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

Date:

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov