alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 484.230 Low-utilization payment adjustments. ( a ) For episodes beginning on or before December 31, 2019, an episode with four or fewer visits is paid the national per-visit amount by discipline determined in accordance with § 484.215(a) and updated annually by the applicable market basket for each visit type, in accordance with § 484.225. ( 1 ) The national per-visit amount is adjusted by the appropriate wage index based on the site of service of the beneficiary.
( 2 ) An amount is added to the low-utilization payment adjustments for low-utilization episodes that occur as the beneficiary's only episode or initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes.
( 3 ) For purposes of the home health PPS, a sequence of adjacent episodes for a beneficiary is a series of claims with no more than 60 days without home care between the end of one episode, which is the 60th day (except for episodes that have been PEP-adjusted), and the beginning of the next episode.
( b ) For periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020, an HHA receives a national 30-day payment of a predetermined rate for home health services, unless CMS determines at the end of the 30-day period that the HHA furnished minimal services to a patient during the 30-day period. ( 1 ) For each payment group used to case-mix adjust the 30-day payment rate, the 10th percentile value of total visits during a 30-day period of care is used to create payment group specific thresholds with a minimum threshold of at least 2 visits for each case-mix group.
( 2 ) A 30-day period with a total number of visits less than the threshold is paid the national per-visit amount by discipline determined in accordance with § 484.215(a) and updated annually by the applicable market basket for each visit type, in accordance with § 484.225.
( 3 ) The national per-visit amount is adjusted by the appropriate wage index based on the site of service for the beneficiary.
( c ) An amount is added to low-utilization payment adjustments for low-utilization periods that occur as the beneficiary's only 30-day period or initial 30-day period in a sequence of adjacent periods of care. For purposes of the home health PPS, a sequence of adjacent periods of care for a beneficiary is a series of claims with no more than 60 days without home care between the end of one period, which is the 30th day (except for episodes that have been partial payment adjusted), and the beginning of the next episode.
[83 FR 56629, Nov. 13, 2018]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6970

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARVIN HAROLD WITHERSPOON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00021-RLV; 5:04-cr-00005-RLVDCK-1) 

Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Marvin Harold Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Marvin Harold Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as 

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motions, and 

dismissing them on that basis and denying his motion to alter or 

amend the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 

369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Witherspoon 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Witherspoon’s notice of 

appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. 

2 
3 

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to 

obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a 

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly 

discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due 

diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the 

offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously 

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on 

collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). 

Witherspoon’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. 

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

                Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code,
        the undersigned, Joseph L. Castle II, the Chairman and Chief Executive
        Officer of Castle Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies
        that:

I.      The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended September 30,
        2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

II.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.

Dated:  December 24, 2004            /s/JOSEPH L. CASTLE II
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Joseph L. Castle II
                                     Chief Executive Officer

        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
        been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by
        Castle Energy Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

d1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141626

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141626 COA: 297610 Wayne CC: 07-014002 ROBERT CALVIN CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 30, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### William M. Smith, Appellant, *v.*Herman Davis et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, borough of Manhattan, for the first district.

Smith Tuttle, for appellant.

Maurice M. Greenstein, for respondents.

Leventritt, J.

To recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff brought this action. He contended that the defendants had effected purchases of shoes from one William B. Dibble, to the amount of $100.40, and having paid on account thereof only $70, there remained owing a balance of $30.40, which demand was duly assigned to him. The defendants resisted recovery upon the plea that they had fully paid for all the goods which they had purchased, and that the $30.40 claimed, represented certain shoes, which they had never bought, and which they returned shortly after receipt.

Upon the trial, the sole issue litigated was whether the rejected goods were or were not ordered by the defendants, and the trial justice accepting the version of the disputed transaction, as der tailed by the defendants, rendered a verdict in their favor. The evidence fully justifies that conclusion. There is no question of law involved in this appeal. The appellant invokes a review of the determination of the justice upon a matter of fact, as to which there was conflicting evidence, and in the decision of which he seeks the substitution of the judgment of the appellate tribunal for that of the trial justice without any indication in the evidence that partiality, bias or prejudice induced or affected the conclusion, or that otherwise injustice has been done. It has been repeatedly held that under such circumstances the judgment of the court below will not be disturbed. It is to be regretted that so many hopeless appeals are prosecuted and appellants consequently subjected to unnecessary expense, oftentimes exceeding the amount in controversy.

The perusal of any one of a long series of authorities, which could be cited, should discourage the prosecution of appeals, purely upon questions of fact, which must necessarily eventuate in affirmance. Polletreau v. U. S. Electric Light *&*Power Co., 13 Misc. Rep. 237; Paterson Gas Co. v. Lichtenstein, 9 id. 126; Goodman v. Ricadonna, 13 id. 66; Mitchell, Vance *&*Co. v. Daiker, *79946 N. Y. St. Repr. 189; Lynch v. Kluber, 20 Misc. Rep. 601; Lowenthan v. Copland, 18 id. 6; Foster v. Meeks, id. 463.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and MacLean, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-87,555-01 EX P ARTE ANTHONY CRUZ BERNAL, App licant ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. C-42,307-A IN THE 244 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM ECTOR COUNTY A L C A L A , J., fi led a concurring opin ion . CONCURR ING

OP INION I ag ree with this Court’s rema nd order ’s deter

mination that applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, “if true, might entitle him to relief .” I , howeve r, do not join this Cou rt ’s order beca use I would require the habe as cour

t on remand to a

ppoint counsel for a

pplicant upon reque st if he is indig ent, reg ardle ss of whether the trial court holds a hear ing. See Ex parte Pointer , 492 S.W .3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curia m) (Alca la, J ., concur ring ). Specifica lly , in addition to the order ’s

curr ent admonition t h at the appointment of counsel is mandatory for an indige nt applicant upon reque st if the habea s court holds a hear ing, I would include a further admonishment that an indige nt appli ca n t i s “entitled” to the appointm ent of counsel upon reque st “if the court concludes that the interests of justice require repr esenta tion.” See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A R T . 1.051(d). Wit h these comments, Irespe ctfully

concur in this C ourt’s orde r. Filed: Nove mber 22, 2017 Do Not Publish
Home2021 Treaties and Agreements...France (21-101) – Agreement on Employment of Dependents of Official Employees

# 									France (21-101) – Agreement on Employment of Dependents of Official Employees							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

January 1, 2021

Employment

Signed at Washington May 30, 2019; entered into force January 1, 2021.
Download Agreement						 [853 KB]

Tags

EmploymentFranceTreaties

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
- Office Home
- Key Topics

HomeKey Topics...Entrepreneurship

# Entrepreneurship

## Promoting Entrepreneurship Worldwide

*At the direction of the Secretary of State, CBA works closely with the White House, the Department’s regional and functional bureaus, other U.S. government agencies, and the private sector to lead the Department’s efforts to promote entrepreneurship worldwide.*

The Global Entrepreneurship Program (GEP) housed within the Office of Commercial and Business Affairs advances entrepreneurship promotion abroad by promoting programmatic partnerships with U.S. embassies to promote new potential programs. GEP also plays a key role in planning, organizing, and implementing the U.S. government’s Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES), which aims to showcase inspiring entrepreneurs and investors from around the world creating new opportunities for investment, partnership, and collaboration.

## 							Discover More						

		Global Entrepreneurship Summits		Read more 

		Global Entrepreneurship Week		Read more 

		Key Topics		Read more 

Back to Top
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1809 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate the in the 

home restriction for Medicare coverage of mobility devices for individuals 

with expected long-term needs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. TERRY, Mr. WELLER of Illinois, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. KENNEDY, 

Mr. FARR, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the in the home restriction for Medicare coverage of 

mobility devices for individuals with expected long-term 

needs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Independent 

5 Living Act of 2007’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1809 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF IN THE HOME RESTRICTION FOR 

2 MEDICARE COVERAGE OF MOBILITY DEVICES 

3 FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH EXPECTED LONG4 TERM NEEDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n) is amended by inserting 

7 ‘‘or, in the case of a mobility device required by an indi8 vidual with expected long-term need, used in customary 

9 settings for the purpose of normal domestic, vocational, 

10 or community activities’’ after ‘‘1819(a)(1))’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply to items furnished on or after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit 23. Consent of KPMG LLP.











                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.'s
333-62643, 333-10641, 333-69010) on Form S-8 of Princeton National Bancorp,
Inc., of our report dated February 20, 2004, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December
31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears
in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Princeton National
Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 11, 2004


                                                                              55
41016.

#### SECKINGER v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY.

Eraniojm, Judge.

On a previous appeal of this case this court ruled that, “if, upon another trial of the case, the evidence is no different, a verdict finding damages and attorney’s fees would not be authorized.” *American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger,*108 Ga. App. 262, 264 (5) (132 SE2d 794). While the opinion, as published on the former appearance of this case in this court, does not show the basis for the ruling made, an examination of the evidence shows that the defendant on the first trial, as on the second trial, based its defense on the proposition that the policy of insurance sued on afforded coverage on account of sickness contracted and commenced only after the policy had been in force for 30' days, and that the plaintiff had had symptoms of his illness after the policy was issued but prior to the expiration of 30' days from the date of the policy. The evidence on the first trial which was relied on by the defendant to show this ultimate fact and which formed the basis of the ruling in Division 5 of the former opinion was that the policy was issued on April 25, 1960, and that while the plaintiff contended that his sickness, which was caused by a duodenal ulcer, did not commence until June 2, 1960, he had stated in a notice of claim filed with another insurance company that his sickness commenced on May 7, 1960. On the second trial the evidence relied upon to establish the defense was a copy of the history of the plaintiff’s illness entered on the hospital records by the plaintiff’s doctor to the effect that the plaintiff had a history of having “gnawing hepagastric pain about two w'eeks” prior to June 2, 1960, which would have been prior to the effective date of the policy with respect to sickness. Under this evidence, as well as under that introduced on the first trial, the defendant insurance company was justified in contending that the plaintiff’s sickness had commenced prior to the time the policy became effective to provide coverage for sickness. The evidence adduced on the second trial, therefore, showed a reasonable and probable cause for refusing to pay the claim, and authorized the trial court to make the rulings complained of in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, which rulings eliminated from the case any question as to the right of the plaintiff to recover damages and attorney’s fees on *8account of the defendant’s bad faith. *Interstate Life &c. Co. v. Williamson,*220 Ga. 323, 326 (138 SE2d 668).

Decided January 12, 1965.

*J. B. Blackburn, C. E. Clark,*for plaintiff in error.

*Brannen, Clark & Hester, H. Sol Clark,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIK CATHELL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 504 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for theannual period ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust. 

SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR 

SABINE ROYALTY TRUST 

 
  By: /s/    Ron E. Hooper            Ron E. Hooper,Date: March 8, 2018   SVP, Royalty Trust Management
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
#### Mrs. Betty PIRIE v. EAST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION.

No. 51413.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 12, 1979.

Crawley & Ford, Kosciusko, Cothren, Pittman & Ferrell, Crymes G. Pittman, A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by R. Lloyd Arnold, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant.

Hathorn & Hathorn, Louisville, Deen, Cameron, Prichard & Young, R. B. Deen, Jr., Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

*MIIBefore SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
o %,Bo P UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY REGIO N 6 144 5 ROS S AVENUE , SUIT E 120 0 DALLAS , T X 75202-273 3

May 2 , 200 0 Mr . Duan e Reel , City Enginee r Settlin g Defendant' s Projec t Coordinato r P.O . Bo x 12 6 Jacksonville , Arkansa s 7207 6 Re : Chang e o f

Notic e Addressee ; Consen t Decre e Entere dJun e 17,199 4 i n Unite dState s v . Cit y o/Ji^c^ci«v//7e , C.A . No . LR-C-94-196 , E.D.Ark . Dear Mr . Reel : Pleas e not e tha t

i n connectio nwithsectio nXXVII , paragrap h9 9 o f th e reference d consen t decree , th e followin g notic e addresse e shoul db e subsfitute d"A s t o EPA" . Inlieu o f "Me l McFarland , Assistan t

Regiona l Counsel , Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n6 , 144 5 Ros s Avenue , 12 * Floor , Dallas , T X 75202, " pleas e substitut e "Jame s L . Tumer , Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

Regiona l Counsel , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n6 , 144 5 Ros s Ave . Ste . 1200 , Dallas , Texa s 75202. " I f yo u hav e an y questions , yo u ma y cal l Ms . Kathlee nAisling , Roger s Roa dLandfil l Site Remedia l Projec t

Manage r (RPM ) at (214 ) 665-8509 , o r

hav e yoto r counse l cal l m e a

t (214 ) 665

- 3159 . Sincerel y yours , 

# '4 7 z z U

Jame s L . Turne r Senio r Attome y (6RC-S ) cc : Bo b Bamburg , Esq . (Vi aTelefax & U.S . Mail ) SamBlesi , DO J (Vi aTelefax ) 905035 8

Interne t Addres s (URL ) • http://www.epa.go v Recycled/Recyclabl e • Printed wit h Vegetabl e Oi l Based Ink s o n Recycle d Pape r(Minimu m 25 % Postconsumer )Ma y 2 , 200 0 Mr . Duan e Reel , Cit

y Enginee r Settlin g Defendant' s Projec t Coordinato r P.O . Bo x 12 6 Jacksonville , Arkansa s 7207 6 Re : Chang e o f

Nofic e Addressee ; Consent Decre e Entere dJun e 17 , 199 4 i nUnite dState s v . Cit y o/JflcA.yowv/7/e, CA . No . LR-C-94-196 , E.D.Ark . Dear Mr . Reel : Pleas e not e that

inconnectio nwit

hsectio nXXVII , paragrap h9 9 o f th e reference d consen t decree , th e followin g notic e addresse e shoul db e substitute d"A s t o EPA" . Inlieu o f "Me l McFarland , Assistan t

Regiona l Counsel , Unite dState s Environmenta l Protecfio nAgency , Regio n6 , 144 5 Ros s Avenue , 12" ^ Floor , Dallas , T

X 75202, " pleas e substitut e "Jame s L . Tumer , Senio r Attomey , Offic e o f

Regional Counsel , U.S . Environmenta l Protecfio n Agency , Regio n6 , 144 5 Ros s Ave . Ste . 1200 , Dallas , Texa s 75202. " I f yo u hav e an y questions , you ma y cal l Ms . Kathlee nAisling , Roger s Roa dLandfil l Site Remedial Projec t

Manage r (RPM ) a t (214 ) 665-8509 , o r

hav e you r counse l cal l m e a

t (214 ) 665

- 3159 . Sincerel y yours .

Jame s L . Tume r Senio r Attorne y (6RC-S ) cc : Bo b Bamburg , Esq . (Vi aTelefax & U.S . Mail ) SamBlesi , DO J (Vi aTelefax ) 6RC-S:MjqRNER:jh:x3159:05020 0 File : c:\Rogersrd\Reel050200.wp d