alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Frank Marcinowski 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Regulatory Compliance 

EM-10 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

David Moody, PhD, Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

George Basabilvazo 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

~R 18 2008 

Dear Mr. Marcinowski, Dr. Moody and Mr Basabilvazo: 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

This letter is to notify you that on March 18, 2008, EPA is performing an 

unannounced inspection of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant periodic shrouded probe pull 

activities at Station A under the authority of 40 CFR 191, Subpart A and 40 CFR 194.21 

(A)(l ). Mr. Chuck Byrum will be conducting the inspection. Please provide him full 

cooperation, including unfettered access. 

Enclosed is information that provides the planned focus of the WIPP inspection, 

although he may inspect additional items if he deems it necessary. 

If you have any questions please contact Tom Peake at (202) 343-9765 or myself 

at (202) 343-9437. 

Sincerely, 

~~"¥~~ Juan Reyes, Director 

Radiation Protection Division 

lntemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution: 

Alton Harris, DOE/HQ 

Ava Holland, DOE/CBFO 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

Thomas Kesterson, NMED/Carlsbad 

Nick Stone, EPA Region 6 

EPA Docket 
WIPP Unannounced Station A-Probe Pull Inspection Plan 

40 CFR 191, Subpart A 

Purpose: EPA will perform an unannounced probe pull inspection at the Department of 

Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site to observe a probe pull at Station 

A. This inspection is conducted under the authority of 40 CFR 191, Subpart A and 40 

CFR 194.21 (A)(l ). This inspection is part of EPA's continued oversight to ensure that 

WIPP can, during the operational phase of management and storage of radioactive waste, 

comply with the limits expressed in Section 191.03 Standards. 

Scope: The specific scope of this inspection activity is to verify that DOE at WIPP is 

appropriately pulling and cleaning the shrouded air sampling probes at Station A. EPA 

will verify that the probe condition documented in DOE's WIPP photographs, taken at 

each probe pull, are accurate representations of actual probe conditions. 

Location: This inspection will be held at the WIPP facility located twenty-six miles 

south east of Carlsbad, New Mexico and the surrounding vicinity as needed. 

Duration: The EPA plans to conduct its inspection in one day. 

Expected Dates: March 18, 2008. 

Special Considerations: Because ofthe nature of this inspection, DOE will provide the 

inspection free and full access to a digital camera, if needed, and provide the inspector 

the most recent copies of all pertinent site procedures as needed to verify the probe pull 

methodology.
#### Kurt NEWMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1664.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 1979.

Alvin E. Entln and Ronald A. Dion, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. On consideration of the briefs, record and argument of counsel, we find no reversible error. *Yost v. State,*243 So.2d 469 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); *De la Cova v. State,*355 So.2d 1227 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); *Williams v. State,*353 So.2d 588 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Mack v. State,*346 So.2d 1229 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Jefferson v. State,*298 So.2d 465 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
- Office Home
- Key Topics

HomeEntrepreneurship...Global Entrepreneurship Week

# 									Global Entrepreneurship Week							

November is National Entrepreneurship Month in the United States, a time to celebrate the entrepreneurs who serve their communities and bolster the American economy. For one week each November, we also recognize the American spirit of entrepreneurship abroad by celebrating Global Entrepreneurship Week. During the week, U.S. embassies and consulates will organize numerous events and inspire thousands of individuals from all backgrounds to follow in the footsteps of generations of American entrepreneurs.

Tags

Entrepreneurship

Back to Top
§ 424.108 Payment to a hospital. ( a ) *Conditions for payment.* Medicare pays the hospital for emergency services if the hospital— ( 1 ) Has in effect a statement of election to claim payment for all covered emergency services furnished during a calendar year, in accordance with § 424.104;
( 2 ) Claims payment in accordance with § 424.32; and
( 3 ) Submits evidence requested by CMS to establish that the services meet the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) *Subsequent claims.* If the hospital files subsequent claims because the initial claim did not include all the services furnished, those claims must include physicians' statements that— ( 1 ) Contain sufficient information to clearly establish that, when the additional services were furnished, the emergency still existed; and
( 2 ) Indicate when the emergency ended, which, for inpatient hospital services, is the earliest date on which the beneficiary could be safely discharged or transferred to a participating hospital or other institution.
### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standard o s for New and Modified Sources

RIN 2060

- A S30

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Comments:

1. Reviewer recommends removing the revenue offset from the cost column and put it in the benefit column, adjusting the numbers accordingly throughout the RIA.

EPA response: In this particular rulemaking, like our 2012 oil and gas NSPS and NESHAP and our rulemakings in the refineries sector, any revenue from th e sale o f recovered natural gas is earned directly by the regulated entity through the direct act of compliance. Therefore, the net compliance cost for the directly regulated entity wil l be capital and operations and maintenance costs minus any potential revenue e arned as a

direct r esult of compliance. EPA believes this to be the appropriate measure of the cost burden being placed on affected sources for the purpose of compliance. This situation is not analogous to other cases where EPA has reported ‘fuel savings ’ as a separate line

item in RIA summary tables. For example, in the vehicle rules where this approach was taken, any reduction in expenditures associated with firms’ compliance accrued to consumers and not the firms directly. However, in this case any reven ue from captured product is a direct offset of the compliance costs for the firms.

2. Reviewer recommends inserting the length of the analytic timeline in p.1

- 2.

EPA response: We added language about the analytical timeframe.

3. Reviewer recommends deleti ng the NAAQS language in pp. 4

- 4 and 4

- 5.

EPA response: W e revised this language, deleted, some text , and moved other text to a

footnote. We feel the revised versio n makes the point more clearly.

4. Reviewer recommends replacing OMB’s OIRA with OMB on p. 4

- 9.

EPA response: We added language about the analytical timeframe.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

GLUE WILKINS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND HON. 

RICHARD A. LEWIS, PRESIDENT 

JUDGE, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 85 MM 2016 

 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “King’s Bench Motion - PCRA” is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
41316.

#### BRUMBELOW et al., Executors v. BRUMBELOW.

Argued May 5, 1965

Decided May 11, 1965.

Hall, Judge.

This case in the superior court resulted in an affirmance of a judgment of the court of ordinary sustaining the appraisers’ award of year’s support to a widow over a caveat filed by the executors of the deceased’s estate. In this court, the executors assign error on the judgment of the superior court overruling- their motion for new trial. *Held:*

An appeal from a judgment of a court of ordinary to the superior court is a de novo investigation. *Code*§§ 6-201, 6-501. Upon the trial of a caveat to the appraisers’ award of year’s support, the appraisers’ return is prima facie evidence that the award is correct, and the caveator has the burden to rebut this evidence by showing that the award is unreasonable or excessive. *Wilson v. Wilson,*54 Ga. App. 770 (189 SE 71). When evidence is presented to show the award is unreasonable or excessive, the jury may make the allowance of year’s support either by sustaining the appraisers’ award or by modifying it. *Cheney v. Cheney,*73 Ga. 66; *Aiken v. Davidson,*146 Ga. 252 (91 SE 34); *Wardlow v. Wardlow,*41 Ga. App. 538 (154 SE 159); *Calhoun Nat. Bank v. Slagle,*53 Ga. App. 553 (186 SE 445).

The ground of the motion for new trial is that the court erred in its charge in that it did not instruct the jury that if they considered the award of the appraisers excessive they should render a verdict fixing the amount of year’s support according to the law and evidence before them. The court charged that, if the jury found the appraisers’ award was not excessive, they should render a verdict for the widow, and if they found the award was excessive, they should render a verdict setting it aside “and due proceedings would be had following that.” The instructions did not tell the jury that they should make their decision and render their verdict on the issue of year’s support de novo, and was therefore incomplete and inadequate.

The evidence did not demand a verdict sustaining the appraisers’ award. *Mays v. Mays,*25 Ga. App. 515 (103 SE 805).

The trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*

*666
      *Cecil D. Franklin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Henry A. Stewart, Sr.,*contra.
HomeNATO Status Lists...01. North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington April 4, 1949

# 									01. North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington April 4, 1949							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force August 24, 1949.

In accordance with Article 11, the Treaty was subject to ratification by the signatories. The Treaty entered into force between the states which had ratified it as soon as the ratifications of a majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States were deposited with the Government of the United States of America. In accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty, the Parties may, by unanimous consent, invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to the Treaty. Any state so invited may become a party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America.
Download Status List						 [128 KB]

Tags

MultilateralNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationTreaties

Back to Top
Home2024 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Jacobsen, Amanda S. – Republic of Equatorial Guinea – April 2024

# 									Jacobsen, Amanda S. – Republic of Equatorial Guinea – April 2024							

Certificate of Competency

April 30, 2024

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT:             Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of

Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service

Act, Section 304(a)(4)

 

POST:                    Republic of Equatorial Guinea

 

CANDIDATE:      Amanda S. Jacobsen

 

Amanda S. Jacobsen is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor.  She currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Gaborone, Botswana, where she was also Chargé d’Affaires a.i. for 11 months.  Previously she was the Public Affairs Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Spokesperson for the Bureau of African Affairs at the State Department and, prior to that, the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.  Over the course of almost two decades of experience as a diplomat, she has served in east, west, and southern Africa and, in her work in Washington, has been called on to help shape and articulate the U.S. government’s positions on the full range of issues involving U.S. policy in Africa. That policy experience and public diplomacy expertise, coupled with her demonstrated success as a leader, make her a well-qualified candidate to serve as Ambassador to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.

Ms. Jacobsen’s other assignments include service at the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal: first as the Embassy’s Cultural Affairs Officer and then as the Regional Refugee Coordinator. She also served as a Consular Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Lome, Togo and as the Public Affairs Officer in Gaborone, Botswana. Before joining the Foreign Service, Ms. Jacobsen was an international educator in Honduras and Mexico and worked at the World Affairs Council in Seattle.

Ms. Jacobsen received her BA degree from the University of Puget Sound and her MA in International Relations from the Brussels School of International Studies, University of Kent.  She speaks Spanish, French, and basic Nepali and is the recipient of numerous performance awards from the Department of State.

Back to Top
No. 27,182.

#### The Electric Theater Company et al., *Appellants,*v. I. Harry Darby et al., as Trustees, etc., and H. G. Thompson, *Appellees.*

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

Municipal Corporations — *Bights and Remedies of Taxpayer■*— Enjoining *Renting of Memorial Building.*The Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Building of Kansas City may not be leased to private persons for exhibition of motion pictures, and a taxpayer of the city may enjoin such leasing.

Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. pp. 622 n. 17, 1744 n. 30.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 4; Charles A. Miller, judge.

Opinion filed April 9, 1927.

Reversed.

*Henry E. Dean*and *E. E. Martin,*both of Kansas City, for the appellants.

*W. L. Wood*and *W. Drennan,*both of Kansas City, for the appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one by a taxpayer of the city of Kansas City, to enjoin leasing of the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Building of that city to private persons for exhibition of motion pictures. A demurrer was sustained to the petition, and plaintiffs appeal. Before the appeal was heard in this court, the case of *Darby v. Otterman,*122 Kan. 603, 252 Pac. 903, was decided. Defendants concede that the decision in the Darby case determines the question involved in this one, and consent that this one may be disposed of accordingly. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to overrule the demurrer and grant the prayer of the petition.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20257

Summary Calendar

JESUS MENDOZA MALDONADO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL JAMES LINDQUIST; CHRISTOPHER T. LOHDEN; 

DIANE K. SMEDLEY; RUTH WATKINS,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-97

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint

for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Maldonado challenges the

district court’s authority to dismiss his complaint but does not

challenge the district court’s basis for dismissing his complaint.

The district court had the authority to dismiss Maldonado’s

complaint, and Maldonado’s failure to identify an error in the

district court’s analysis is the same as if he had not appealed the
2

judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Further, conclusional assertions are not sufficient to establish a

retaliation claim. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th

Cir. 1995) (to establish retaliation claim, one must produce either

direct evidence of a retaliatory motive or at least “allege a

chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be

inferred”) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). 

As Maldonado’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is

dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Maldonado is warned

that any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### § 435.500 Scope.

This subpart prescribes categorical requirements for determining the eligibility of both categorically and medically needy individuals specified in subparts B, C, and D of this part.
#### John Klein, Appellant, *v.*Lyman S. Harding, Respondent.

(County Court, Oneida County,

January, 1899.)

Verdict — Improper interference with the jury by counsel. "

After a jury had returned a conditional verdict which a justice of the peace refused to receive, the defendant’s attorney proposed to the jury that if they would find no cause of action his client would pay the plaintiff a sum named by the counsel. The jury then found no cause of action.

Held, that the verdict must be set aside and that the proposition of the counsel was a wilful contempt of court as constituting an improper interference with the jury.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant before F. L. Hathaway, a justice of the peace of the town of Kirkland. After the ease was submitted to the jury and they had retired, they returned into court and rendered the following verdict: “We find that there is no cause of action, providing Mr. Harding, the defendant, pay to the plaintiff $9.50.” The justice refused to receive such a verdict and sent the jury back to their room with the instruction that if the jury had found that defendant owed plaintiff $9.50, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. Defendant’s counsel (but not the counsel who appeared on this appeal) then said to the jury that if they would find for no cause of action, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the $9.50.' The jury then retired and returned into court and rendered a verdict of no cause of action. The defendant thereupon paid $9.50, as agreed by defendant’s counsel, to the court in the presence of plaintiff, and the money was applied by the justice in payment of costs and in reduction of the amount of costs adjudged against plaintiff. From the judgment entered upon that verdict this appeal is taken.

L. M. Martin, for appellant.

T. S. Jones, for respondent.

*184Dunmore, J.

The only question presented "by this appeal is whether a verdict, obtained in the way this verdict was, should be permitted to stand. The first finding of the jury implied that they found an indebtedness of $9.50 owing to plaintiff, but for some reason they evidently did not want to throw the costs upon defendant, and, therefore, brought in 'the conditional verdict. The justice very properly refused to receive it, and sent the jury back to their room. Defendant’s counsel (but not the counsel who appears on this appeal) not only violated his duty, but violated the law in proposing to the jury, that if they would find a verdict of no cause of action, defendant would pay plaintiff $9.50. Such a proposition made in open court is a wilful contempt and should have been punished as such. Any clandestine interference with a jury by a party or his counsel has always been held to have vitiated a verdict. Such an improper suggestion as this; although made in open court, is nearly as reprehensible, and may be equally dangerous. The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.80 Direct GME payments: Determination of weighting factors for foreign medical graduates. ( a ) The weighting factor for a foreign medical graduate is determined under the provisions of § 413.79 if the foreign medical graduate— ( 1 ) Has passed FMGEMS; or
( 2 ) Before July 1, 1986, received certification from, or passed an examination of, the Educational Committee for Foreign Medical Graduates.
( b ) Before July 1, 1986, the weighting factor for a foreign medical graduate is 1.0 times the weight determined under the provisions of § 413.79. On or after July 1, 1986, and before July 1, 1987, the weighting factor for a graduate of a foreign medical school who was in a residency program both before and after July 1, 1986 but who does not meet the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section is .50 times the weight determined under the provisions of § 413.79.
( c ) On or after July 1, 1987, these foreign medical graduates are not counted in determining the number of FTE residents.
( d ) During the cost reporting period in which a foreign medical graduate passes FMGEMS, the weighting factor for that resident is determined under the provisions of § 413.79 for the part of the cost reporting period beginning with the month the resident passes the test.
( e ) On or after September 1, 1989, the National Board of Medical Examiners Examination, Parts I and II, may be substituted for FMGEMS for purposes of the determination made under paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section.
( f ) On or after June 1, 1992, the United States Medical Licensing Examination may be substituted for the FMGEMS for purposes of the determination made under paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section. On or after July 1, 1993, only the results of steps I and II of the United States Medical Licensing Examination will be accepted for purposes of making this determination.
[69 FR 49254, Aug. 11, 2004]
§ 423.1058 Dismissal of request for hearing. ( a ) The ALJ may, at any time before mailing the notice of the decision, dismiss a hearing request if a party withdraws its request for a hearing or the affected party asks that its request be dismissed.
( b ) An affected party may request a dismissal by filing a written notice with the ALJ.
§ 455.410 Enrollment and screening of providers. ( a ) The State Medicaid agency must require all enrolled providers to be screened under to this subpart.
( b ) The State Medicaid agency must require all ordering or referring physicians or other professionals providing services under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan to be enrolled as participating providers.
( c ) The State Medicaid agency may rely on the results of the provider screening performed by any of the following: ( 1 ) Medicare contractors.
( 2 ) Medicaid agencies or Children's Health Insurance Programs of other States.
( d ) The State Medicaid agency must allow enrollment of all Medicare-enrolled providers and suppliers for purposes of processing claims to determine Medicare cost-sharing (as defined in section 1905(p)(3) of the Act) if the providers or suppliers meet all Federal Medicaid enrollment requirements, including, but not limited to, all applicable provisions of 42 CFR part 455, subparts B and E. This paragraph (d) applies even if the Medicare-enrolled provider or supplier is of a type not recognized by the State Medicaid Agency.
[76 FR 5968, Feb. 2, 2011, as amended at 86 FR 45521, Aug. 13, 2021]