alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeResources...Federal Resources for Trafficking Victims

# Federal Resources for Trafficking Victims

## 								Federal Resources							

        -  **Immigration Options:** Foreign national victims of human trafficking may be eligible for anti-trafficking immigration options. 
        -  **Certification and Eligibility Letters:** Foreign national adult and minor victims of human trafficking are eligible for certain benefits and services under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 
        -  **Federal Funding:** Federal funding supports victim services, training and technical assistance, capacity building, and research throughout the United States and around the world. 
        -  **Employment Assistance:** Federal agencies support initiatives that provide employment assistance and resources for survivors. 
        -  **Agency Tip Lines:** The U.S. government funds the National Human Trafficking Hotline, which is operated by a nongovernmental organization, and operates several other human trafficking help or tip lines. 
        -  **Inventory of Federal Anti-Trafficking Resources:** Comprehensive list of federal government anti-trafficking resources. 

## 							Discover More						

		Immigration Options		Read more 

		Certification and Eligibility Letters		Read more 

		Federal Funding		Read more 

		Employment Assistance		Read more 

		Agency Human Trafficking Tip Lines		Read more 

Back to Top
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1373

___________

Richard E. Kulkey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mark VII Distributors, Inc., a * [UNPUBLISHED]

Minnesota corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 16, 2000

Filed: January 30, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard E. Kulkey brought this action against his former employer, Mark VII

Distributors, Inc., alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,

the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Kulkey,

who was employed for approximately eight years as the custodian at Mark VII’s St.

Paul distribution warehouse, received a series of negative performance evaluations,

culminating in his being placed on probation and having his hours temporarily reduced

from forty to twenty per week on November 17, 1997. Kulkey had earlier suffered a
1The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

2The Honorable John M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

work-related shoulder injury, which he later aggravated off the job, resulting in his

filing a worker’s compensation claim on October 9, 1997. After being placed on

probation, Kulkey quit his job at Mark VII. A younger worker has since performed at

least some of Kulkey’s old job duties.

Characterizing his probation and his subsequent resignation, which he contends

was a constructive discharge, as adverse employment actions, Kulkey’s complaint

alleged that he had suffered retaliatory action for filing his worker’s compensation

claim and that Mark VII had discriminated against him because of his age and his

actual or perceived disability. The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor

of Mark VII. Kulkey appeals both from that judgment and from the district court’s

prior order affirming the magistrate judge’s2 denial of Kulkey’s discovery request and

his imposition of sanctions in the amount of $350.00.

The district court held that Kulkey had failed to demonstrate a causal connection

between his age, any disability that he may have, or his filing a worker’s compensation

claim and the adverse employment action, that he had failed to demonstrate that Mark

VII’s proffered reason for the action (his poor work performance) was pretextual, and

that he had failed to show that the magistrate judge’s decision to impose sanctions and

to deny the discovery request was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the district court’s opinion and order, we affirm

pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.

Affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 425.10 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This part implements section 1899 of the Act by establishing a shared savings program that promotes accountability for a patient population, coordinates items and services under Medicare parts A and B, and encourages investment in infrastructure and redesigned care processes for high quality and efficient services. The regulations under this part must not be construed to affect the payment, coverage, program integrity, and other requirements that apply to providers and suppliers under FFS Medicare, except as permitted under section 1899(f) of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* This part sets forth the following: ( 1 ) The eligibility requirements for an ACO to participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program).
( 2 ) Application procedures and provisions of the participation agreement.
( 3 ) Program requirements and beneficiary protections.
( 4 ) The method for assigning Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries to ACOs.
( 5 ) Quality performance standards, reporting requirements, and data sharing.
( 6 ) Payment criteria and methodologies (one-sided model and two-sided models).
( 7 ) Compliance monitoring and sanctions for noncompliance.
( 8 ) Reconsideration review process.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32833, June 9, 2015]
#### The People ex rel. Wheeler, Relator, *v.*The Common Council of the City of Syracuse et al., Defendants.

Application for a writ of peremptory mandamus.

W. G. Tracy, for application.

James E. Newell, opposed.

Hiscock, J.

The relator in this case is a veteran and desires appointment to the position of weigher of hay, a position in the municipal government of the city of Syracuse, which is subject to civil service appointment based upon competitive examination and which is idled by appointment by the common council.

The facts upon this application are substantially the same as those in the case of People ex rel. Drake against the same parties, 26 Mise. Rep. 522, and those facts are subject to substantially the same principles, which, therefore, lead to the same conclusion denying relator’s application.'

Ordered accordingly.
CPFHumanSerum/PlasmaAssay:LOD&LOQ•Maternal/cordbloodanalyzedusinghigh‐resolutionMSmethod(Barretal.,2002)–Table4ofBarretal.(2002)reportsmethodspecificationsforchlorpyrifos–Chlorpyrifos LOD=1pg/g,R2=0.999,Accuracy=96•EPApreliminaryreviewofBarretal.(2002)method–Sophisticatedandsensitivemethod–Specificallydesignedtomeasurelowlevelsinthepg/grange–Specificationssuggestmethodcanquantifyconcentrationsat≥3pg/g•EPApersonalcommunicationwithR.Wyatt–D.Barrrecommendedthatmethodcouldreliablyquantifyconcentrations≥LOD–LODandLOQareessentiallythesame/comparable–ConfidentthatbloodconcentrationscouldbequantifieddowntotheLOD(1pg/g)Effectsseen6.17pg/gupper‐tertile of>LOD(Rauh etal.2006)LikelylowenoughunlikelytoresultinAChE inhibitionYearNMeanCPF(pg/g)1999875.0(4.1‐6.2)2000831.9(1.4‐2.4)2001330.5(0.3‐0.6)1998‐20023144.0(sd 6.1)Range:ND‐632001‐200465<LOD2.5(95th)Whyatt etal.2003,2004,2009DAPSourcesByPesticidehttp://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdfSlidefrom:2008Tele‐seminargivenbyBrendaEskenazi toEPA‐OPPTCPYSources•Chlorpyrifos–Broaduseinsecticide•manycropsincludingbrassica,corn,carrot,peppers,treenuts,etc.•noncrop usesincludingornamentals,industrialsites,etc.•Chlorpyrifos methyl–Storedgrains•Triclopyr–Range/pastureland,forestry,homelawns,riceUseInformationPertinenttoChamacosPESTICIDESWITHTCPYASKEYMETABOLITE,APPLIEDINSALINASVALLEYChemicalSITE NAMEPoundsApplied19981999200020012002TRICLOPYRLANDSCAPEMAINTENANCE1,1091,0351,5741,9632,047RIGHTS OF WAY126256319397599UNCULTIVATED NONAG AREAS (ALL ORUNSPEC)48132213313TOTAL APPLIED3,2803,3023,9154,4944,661CHLORPYRIFOSTOTAL APPLIED(many crops)53,106138,82155,78567,67563,360Source:CaliforniaPURdata,1998‐2002(MontereyCountyData)Potential“Pathways”(AOP,MOA)LeadingtoDevelopmentalNeurotoxicityRelatedtoChlorpyrifos ExposurePathwayInitiatingEventMorphogenic RoleofAChEbindingtoAchECholinergicSignalingactivationofM2receptorEndocannabiniod systeminhibitionofCB1/FAAHROS?Serotinergic system?Tubulin/MAPsbindingtotubulin/MAPs
#### I. P. J., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. UU-445, UU-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1981.

Michael Allen, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr. and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Two petitions for delinquency were filed against appellant, one charging appellant with prowling and the second alleging appellant had violated his community control by (1) being arrested for prowling, and (2) failing to make restitution as required. The juvenile division of the circuit court found the charges to be true and adjudicated appellant delinquent. We reverse.

The State established only that appellant was on a city sidewalk in a commercial area of Jacksonville at two o’clock in the morning. This evidence fails to meet the standards set forth for a prowling conviction in *State v. Ecker,*311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975), or the lesser standard of the greater weight of the evidence necessary to support a probation violation based on the prowling arrest. *Wheeler v. State,*344 So.2d 630 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The violation of probation cannot be affirmed on the failure of appellant to make restitution, as the State failed to produce any evidence showing that appellant had the financial ability to make the payments. *Coxon v. State,*365 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).

The order is REVERSED.

McCORD, SHIVERS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
#### William B. Burnett, Plaintiff, *v.*James Mitchell, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1899.)

Examination, of party before trial — Facts showing the testimony to be material must be shown.

Facts and circumstances showing the testimony of a party to be material and necessary must be shown by affidavit in order to justify his examination before trial, and it is not enough for the moving party merely to allege that the testimony is material and necessary.

Motion to vacate order for examination of plaintiff before trial.

Carroll Sprigg, for motion.

Hatch & Wickes, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a motion to vacate an order for the examination of the plaintiff before trial, under section 870 of the Code. The affidavits upon which the order was granted are made by the defendant and his attorney, and set forth all the formal requirements of section 872 of the Code applicable to the case. It is objected that they do not comply with subdivision 5 of said section, for the reason that they do not show that the defendant cannot have the attendance of the plaintiff at the trial. This subdivision, however, particularly states that it does not apply to a case where a party to the action is to be examined. Ko affidavits have been submitted on the part of the plaintiff on this motion, but the motion is made upon the papers upon which the order was granted, together with a previous order for a bill of particulars, the bill of particulars served thereon and a supplemental bill of particulars. Rule 82 of the General Rules of Practice requires that the affidavit shall specify the facts and circumstances which show, in conformity with subdivision 4 of section 872 of the Code, that the examination of the person is material and necessary. It is not sufficient merely to allege that the testimony of the party is material and necessary for the party making the application in the prosecution or defense of the action, or that the party cannot safely proceed to trial without the examination. See Crooke v. Corbin, 23 Hun, 176. I do not think that the de*548fendant has sufficiently complied with the requirements of this rule. The motion is granted, with $10 costs to abide the event.

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide event.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.678 Evidence.

The hearing officer rules on the admissibility of evidence and may admit evidence that would be inadmissible under rules applicable to court procedures.
HomeOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in PersonsRemarks & Releases...International Conventions Relevant to Combating Trafficking in Persons

# 									International Conventions Relevant to Combating Trafficking in Persons							

Other Release

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

						Download PDF												[310 KB]

The chart below shows the Ratification, Accession (a), or Acceptance (A) of relevant international conventions for those countries that have ratified, acceded to, or accepted any such conventions.

[Scroll bar is available at the bottom of the table]
### PART 16



## FINAL REGULATION ORDER

Recreational Marine Spark

- Ignition Engines

Title 13

California Code of Regulations

section 2447FINAL REGULATION ORDER

N ote : This document is written in a style to indicate changes from the existing

pr ovisions. All existing regulatory language is indicated by plain type. All additions to the regulatory language are indicated by underlined type. All deletions to the regulatory language are indicated by strikeout . Only those portions containing modifi cations from existing provisions are included. All other portions remain unchanged and are indicated by the symbol [ * * * * * ] for
reference.



### Article 4

. 7 Spark Ignition Marine Engines

Amend § 2447, title 13, California Code of Regulations, to read a s follows:

§ 2447. California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Model Year and Later Spark

- Ignition Marine Engines.

Test Procedures referred to in this article, including the “California Exhaust Emission

Standards and Test Procedur es for 2001 Model Year and Later Spark

- Ignition Marine Engines,” as adopted October 21, 1999, and as last amended June 5, 2009 October 25,

2012

, which is incorporated by reference herein, may be obtained from the State Air Resources Board at P.O. Box 8001, 9528 Telstar Avenue, El Monte, California 91734

- 8001.

NOTE: Authority cited: S ections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43018, 43101, 43102 and 43104, Health and Safety Code. Reference: S ections 43013, 43017, 43018, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43150

- 43154, 43205.5 and 43210

- 43212, Health and Safety Code.
#### GAYLE V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(Decided Nov. 28, 1911.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. O. Lane.

Gaston & PEttus, for appellant.

Romaine Boyd, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
§ 424.90 Court ordered assignments: Conditions and limitations. ( a ) *Conditions for acceptance.* An assignment or reassignment established by or in accordance with a court order is effective for Medicare payments only if— ( 1 ) Someone files a certified copy of the court order and of the executed assignment or reassignment (if it was necessary to execute one) with the intermediary or carrier responsible for processing the claim; and
( 2 ) The assignment or reassignment— ( i ) Applies to all Medicare benefits payable to a particular person or entity during a specified or indefinite time period; or
( ii ) Specifies a particular amount of money, payable to a particular person or entity by a particular intermediary or carrier.
( b ) *Retention of authority to reduce interim payments to providers.* A court-ordered assignment does not preclude the intermediary or carrier from reducing interim payments, as set forth in § 413.64(i) of this chapter, if the provider or assignee is in imminent danger of insolvency or bankruptcy.
( c ) *Liability of the parties.* The party that receives payments under a court-ordered assignment or reassignment that meets the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section and the party that would have received payment if the court order had not been issued are jointly and severally responsible for any Medicare overpayment to the former.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of Foreign Assistance...Key Topics

# 									Key Topics							

Office of Foreign Assistance

The Office of Foreign Assistance (F) offers a holistic approach to coordinating foreign assistance resources for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through our three pillars: Budget, Planning and Performance Management, and Policy Analysis. These three pillars allow F to:

**Lead coordination of U.S. foreign assistance to advance U.S. national security and development priorities.**As the strategic manager of more than 90 percent of U.S. foreign assistance resources, and as the lead coordinator for foreign assistance policy, planning, performance management, and evaluation, F provides a comprehensive view of U.S. foreign assistance funding and helps to bridge the gap between evidence and policy making. F ensures strong support for our foreign policy priorities, and that we that are able to find resources when unforeseen crises hit.

**Develop the foreign assistance budget request for the State Department and USAID.**Each year F, the Department’s Bureau of Budget and Planning, and USAID’s Office of Budget and Resource Management work closely to create a cohesive budget request for Congress. F manages the resulting foreign assistance budget for State and USAID, ensuring that our development and diplomacy needs are met, and that we can respond to unforeseen crises around the world.

**Make informed, data-driven decisions.**F supports making data-driven foreign assistance decisions, and the U.S. government is committed to making foreign assistance programs more transparent and accessible. The State Department and USAID have comprehensive evaluation policies, and require the public posting of foreign assistance evaluations. Additionally, through the Foreign Assistance Data and Reporting Team (FA-DART),F and USAID jointly manageForeignAssistance.gov, the U.S. government’splatform to advance the transparency, accessibility, and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance data. By publishing U.S. foreign assistance data that is accurate and timely, ForeignAssistance.gov presents a multi-dimensional picture of the U.S. foreign assistance lifecycle in a highly visual, interactive website.

**Work on behalf of the American taxpayer.**At less than one percent of the total federal budget, foreign assistance resources work on behalf of the American people to: end the scourge of epidemic diseases like malaria; bolster democracies and human rights around the world; counter violent extremism; enhance nations’ law enforcement capacity; foster economic growth; and much more.

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Erywan

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Erywan							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

May 9, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman met with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan Yusof today in Washington.  Deputy Secretary Sherman and Foreign Minister Erywan affirmed the enduring partnership and cooperation between the U.S. and Brunei based on our shared commitment to the peace, security, and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region. They reflected on their common goals of strengthening cooperation in the region, including through ASEAN and other multilateral fora, on a number of issues, including the ongoing crisis in Burma.  The Deputy Secretary underscored the importance of a strong international response to support Ukraine in defending itself against Russia’s brutal invasion and raised the importance of respect for human rights.

Tags

BruneiBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,236,709
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,612,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                   43,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,133,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,344,078
<PP&E>                                         11,572,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,491,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,292,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          915,806
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       48,581
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,606,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,292,861
<SALES>                                        19,745,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,745,890
<CGS>                                          15,587,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,587,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,389,285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             619,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,154,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                   500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,654,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,654,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .41
        


</TABLE>
No. 99-9034.

#### Orcutt *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeOffice of Civil RightsRemarks & Releases...NO FEAR Act For 1st Quarter 2019

# 									NO FEAR Act For 1st Quarter 2019							

Report

Office of Civil Rights

March 14, 2019

						Download Report												[375 KB]

**Equal Employment Opportunity Data PostedPursuant to the No Fear Act:**

HQ/SOCR (and below)

**For 1st Quarter 2019 for period ending December 31, 2018**