alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harvey JOHNSON et al. v. FRED H. MORAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 54555.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 11, 1974.

In re: Louis Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company applying for Certiorari or Writ of Review to the Court of Appeal, -First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 289 So.2d 323.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Irvin SCOTT v. TERREBONNE LUMBER and United Rent-All, Inc. et al. Irvin SCOTT v. R. J. SHAW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.

Nos. 13599, 13600.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1980.

Gordon Hackman, Boutte, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert E. Peyton, New Orleans, for defendant and appellee United Rent-All, Inc.

Edmund McCollam, Houma, for defendant and appellee Terrebonne Lumber & Supply Co.

Lloyd T. Bourgeois, Thibodaux, for defendants and appellees.

Before COVINGTON, CHIASSON and LEAR, JJ.

LEAR, Judge.

Defendants-appellees, Terrebonne Lumber Company and Hill-Behan Lumber Company, have filed in these proceedings motions to dismiss the appeal filed by plaintiff-appellant, Irvin Scott, for failure of appellant to file its brief timely.1 Briefly, the record reflects the following transactions and dates:

> Record lodged April 11,1980

> Appellant’s brief due May 6,1980

> Appellant’s brief received August 18,1980

> Appellant’s brief returned August 18,1980

> Submission of case to panel August 20,1980

> Appellant’s brief refiled August 21,1980

An examination of the record shows that appellant’s brief was first received timely by the clerk’s office and stamped August 18, 1980, two days prior to the time argument was due thereon before the three judge panel.

The clerk, however, noting that a syllabus and certificate had been omitted,2 returned *1250the brief without filing. Thereafter, appellant added the required portions and returned the brief which was received on August 21, 1980, one day afterwards.

We have reviewed the motions to dismiss and the record herein. We do not believe under the particular circumstances of this case that appellant should have his cause dismissed, as certainly the letter and spirit of the law as well as the policy of this court favor maintaining the right of appeal.

Appellees’ motions to dismiss are, therefore, denied.

DENIED.

1

. UNIFORM RULES — COURTS OF APPEAL

> Rule VII, Section 5. The court may, ex pro-prio motu:

> (b) Consider abandoned and dismiss the appeal in any case in which the appellant has neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the time the case is called for oral argument, or the time the case is *submitted*without oral argument on the docket of the court.

> By “appearance” is meant personal appearance in open court, or the filing of a written instrument negating any intent to abandon the appeal, or the filing of a written pleading; [and] (Emphasis ours.)

2

. UNIFORM RULES — COURTS OF APPEAL

> Rule IX, Section 7:

> In all circuits, briefs shall be accompanied by a certificate to the effect that a copy thereof has been delivered or mailed to opposing counsel or the opposing litigant(s) if not represented by counsel.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby Ray JONES v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 63719.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1979.

In re Bobby Ray Jones applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Craig A. Tooman, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

|             |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                           
|------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  |  |  | /s/ CRAIGA. TOOMAN                                                                                                                        
|May 10, 2010 |  |  |  | Craig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



---
§ 438.310 Basis, scope, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart is based on sections 1932(c), 1903(a)(3)(C)(ii), 1902(a)(4), and 1902(a)(19) of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth: ( 1 ) Specifications for a quality assessment and performance improvement program that States must require each contracting MCO, PIHP, and PAHP to implement and maintain.
( 2 ) Requirements for the State review of the accreditation status of all contracting MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs.
( 3 ) Specifications for a Medicaid managed care quality rating system for all States contracting with MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs.
( 4 ) Specifications for a Medicaid managed care quality strategy that States contracting with MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, and PCCM entities (described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) must implement to ensure the delivery of quality health care.
( 5 ) Requirements for annual external quality reviews of each contracting MCO, PIHP, PAHP including— ( i ) Criteria that States must use in selecting entities to perform the reviews.
( ii ) Specifications for the activities related to external quality review.
( iii ) Circumstances under which external quality review may use the results of Medicare quality reviews or private accreditation reviews.
( iv ) Requirements for making the results of the reviews publicly available.
( c ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) The provisions of this subpart apply to States contracting with MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs for the delivery of services covered under Medicaid.
( 2 ) The provisions of § 438.330(b)(2) and (3), (c), and (e), and § 438.340 apply to States contracting with PCCM entities whose contracts with the State provide for shared savings, incentive payments or other financial reward for the PCCM entity for improved quality outcomes.
( d ) *Applicability dates.* States will not be held out of compliance with the following requirements of this subpart prior to the dates noted below so long as they comply with the corresponding standard(s) in 42 CFR part 438 contained in the 42 CFR parts 430 to 481, edition revised as of July 9, 2024: ( 1 ) States must comply with updates to § 438.340(c) no later than 1 year from July 9, 2024.
( 2 ) States must comply with updates to §§ 438.358(a)(3), 438.358(b)(1) and 438.364(c)(2)(iii) no later than December 31, 2025.
( 3 ) States must comply with § 438.364(a)(2)(iii) no later 1 year from the issuance of the associated protocol.
[81 FR 27853, May 6, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 41278, May 10, 2024]
#### Sharon COOPER v. John REAVES.

77-701.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1978.

Earl D. McNeal, Huntsville, for appellant.

Bibb Allen, of London, Yancey, Clark & Allen, Birmingham, for appellee.

FAULKNER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment holding that a counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations contained in § 6-5-482 Code of Alabama 1975. We reverse.

Sharon Cooper filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. John Reaves. This suit was voluntarily dismissed by Cooper, November 29, 1977. On February 17, 1978, Dr. Reaves filed suit against Cooper alleging malicious prosecution, and claiming money due him by her on open account. In response to the Reaves suit, Cooper filed a counterclaim alleging Reaves “breached a contract” to examine and treat her in a reasonable and proper manner, thereby causing her injury and expense. Reaves contends the counterclaim is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree.

*671While counterclaims in the nature of a set-off may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations, counterclaims in the nature of recoupment are not. This rule prevailed under our former system of pleading, and has not been changed by the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, where recoupment is treated as a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a). *Campbell v. Regal Typewriter Co., Inc.,*341 So.2d 120 (Ala.1976). To constitute recoupment, and thereby escape the bar of the statute of limitations, a counterclaim must arise out of the same transaction as the plaintiff’s claim. Set-off, on the other hand, need not arise out of the same transaction or contract. *Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corporation,*275 Ala. 650, 158 So.2d 90 (1963). Here Cooper’s counterclaim for “breach of contract” clearly arises out of the same transaction as Reaves’ claim on open account, since the contract allegedly breached by Reaves is the same contract which Reaves claims Cooper has not paid. Consequently, the counterclaim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
§ 435.211 Optional eligibility for individuals who would be eligible for cash assistance if they were not in medical institutions. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IV) of the Act.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency may provide Medicaid to any group or groups of individuals specified in § 435.201(a)(1) through (3) who are institutionalized in a title XIX reimbursable medical institution and who: ( 1 ) Are ineligible for the SSI or an optional State supplement program in States that provide Medicaid to optional State supplement recipients, because of lower income standards used under the program to determine eligibility for institutionalized individuals; but
( 2 ) Would be eligible for aid or assistance under SSI or an optional State supplement program (as specified in § 435.232 or § 435.234) if they were not institutionalized.
[81 FR 86452, Nov. 30, 2016]
§ 442.109 Certification period for ICF/IIDs: General provisions. ( a ) A survey agency may certify a facility that fully meets applicable requirements. The State Survey Agency must conduct a survey of each ICF/IID not later than 15 months after the last day of the previous survey.
( b ) The statewide average interval between surveys must be 12 months or less, computed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The statewide average interval is computed at the end of each Federal fiscal year by comparing the last day of the most recent survey for each participating facility to the last day of each facility's previous survey.
[77 FR 29031, May 16, 2012]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Marking Losar, the Tibetan New Year

# 									Marking Losar, the Tibetan New Year							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 9, 2024

I extend my warmest wishes to all those celebrating Losar, the Tibetan New Year. On this first day of the Year of the Wood Dragon, we celebrate the strength and perseverance of the Tibetan community around the globe. Here in the United States, tens of thousands of Tibetan-Americans are integral to the preservation of Tibetans’ distinct cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage.

I wish Tibetans celebrating all across the world peace and prosperity in the new year. Losar Tashi Delek and Happy New Year!

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateTibetOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan IssuesUnder Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

Back to Top
HomeOffice of Civil RightsRemarks & Releases...NO FEAR Act For 1st Quarter 2021

# 									NO FEAR Act For 1st Quarter 2021							

Office of Civil Rights

March 11, 2021

						Download Report												[465 KB]

Tags

Civil RightsDiscriminationEqual OpportunityNo FEAR ActOffice of Civil Rights

Back to Top
§ 440.310 Applicability. ( a ) *Enrollment.* The State may require “full benefit eligible” individuals not excluded in § 440.315 to enroll in benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage.
( b ) *Full benefit eligible.* An individual is a full benefit eligible if determined by the State to be eligible to receive the standard full Medicaid benefit package under the approved State plan if not for the application of the option available under this subpart.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         State of        Percentage
Name                                                     Incorporation   Owned
----                                                     -------------   -----
<S>                                                      <C>             <c>
American Exchange Life Insurance Company                 Texas           100%
American Pioneer Life Insurance Company                  Florida         100%
American Progressive Life & Health Insurance Company
   of New York                                           New York        100%
Ameriplus Preferred Care, Inc.                           Florida         100%
CHCS, Inc.                                               Florida         100%
CHCS Services, Inc.                                      Florida         100%
Constitution Life Insurance Company                      Texas           100%
Eagle Life Insurance Company                             Oklahoma        100%
Heritage Health Systems, Inc.                            Texas           100%
Marquette National Life Insurance Company                Texas           100%
Peninsular Life Insurance Company                        Florida         100%
Penncorp Life Insurance Company                          Canada          100%
Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company                      Pennsylvania    100%
Pyramid Life Insurance Company                           Kansas          100%
SelectCare of Texas                                      Texas
Union Bankers Insurance Company                          Texas           100%
Universal American Financial Corp. Statutory Trust I     Connecticut     100%
Universal American Financial Corp. Statutory Trust II    Connecticut     100%
Universal American Financial Corp. Statutory Trust III   Delaware        100%
Universal American Financial Corp. Statutory Trust IV    Connecticut     100%
Universal American Financial Corp. Statutory Trust V     Delaware        100%
Universal American Financial Services, Inc.              Delaware        100%
WorldNet Services Corp.                                  Florida         100%
</TABLE>
§ 433.121 Reconsideration of the decision to reduce FFP after reapproval review. ( a ) The State Medicaid agency may appeal (to the Departmental Appeals Board under 45 CFR part 16) a disallowance concerning a reduction in FFP claimed for system operations caused by a disapproval of the State's system.
( b ) The decisions concerning whether to restore any FFP retroactively and the actual number of quarters for which FFP will be restored under § 433.122 of this subpart are not subject to administrative appeal to the Departmental Appeals Board under 45 CFR part 16.
( c ) An agency's request for a reconsideration before the Board under paragraph (a) of this section does not delay implementation of the reduction in FFP. However, any reduction is subject to retroactive adjustment if required by the Board's determination on reconsideration.
[50 FR 30848, July 30, 1985, as amended at 54 FR 41974, Oct. 13, 1989; 55 FR 1820, Jan. 19, 1990; 76 FR 21974, Apr. 19, 2011]
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Funding Opportunities
- Research and Resources
- Remarks and Releases

HomeBureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration...Key Topics – Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

# 									Key Topics – Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration							

## Humanitarian Assistance Overseas

PRM supports efforts to protect and assist refugees and vulnerable migrants around the world.  We maintain our enduring humanitarian commitments by working to assist refugees and other displaced people as close to their home countries as possible until they can safely and voluntarily return.  More information on our overseas humanitarian assistance by region»

## Refugee Admissions

In FY 2023, the United States expects to resettle up to 125,000 refugees. More information on the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program»

## Policy Issues

Through humanitarian diplomacy and close work with foreign governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), PRM supports protection and assistance to ease the suffering of the most vulnerable around the world, seeks durable solutions to their plight and contributes to broader USG and international efforts to resolve conflicts that cause displacement.  The U.S. leads the world as the largest single humanitarian donor.  We expect others to help share in the burden and responsibility of assisting refugees and other displaced people.More information on our specific policies»

Tags

International OrganizationsRefugee AdmissionsRefugees

Back to Top
§ 440.100 Dental services. ( a ) “Dental services” means diagnostic, preventive, or corrective procedures provided by or under the supervision of a dentist in the practice of his profession, including treatment of— ( 1 ) The teeth and associated structures of the oral cavity; and
( 2 ) Disease, injury, or impairment that may affect the oral or general health of the beneficiary.
( b ) “Dentist” means an individual licensed to practice dentistry or dental surgery.
[43 FR 45224, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 24888, Apr. 11, 1980]
# C_2006036EN.01002903.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2005 — Heubach v Commission

(Case T-64/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartel - Zinc phosphate market - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Action for annulment - Objection of illegality - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Gravity of the infringement - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Statement of reasons)

(2006/C 36/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Dr Hans Heubach GmbH & Co. KG (Langelsheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag and G. Bauer, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted by H. J. Freund, lawyer)

Defendant(s):

Application for

partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/437/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) (OJ 2003 L 153, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.1280 Conditions necessary to contract as an MCO, PAHP, or PIHP. ( a ) The State must assure that any entity seeking to contract as an MCO, PAHP, or PIHP under a separate child health program has administrative and management arrangements or procedures designed to safeguard against fraud and abuse.
( b ) The State must ensure that the arrangements or procedures required in paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Enforce MCO, PAHP, and PIHP compliance with all applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations, and standards.
( 2 ) Prohibit MCOs, PAHPs, and PIHPs from conducting any unsolicited personal contact with a potential enrollee by an employee or agent of the MCO, PAHP, or PIHP for the purpose of influencing the individual to enroll with the entity.
( 3 ) Include a mechanism for MCOs, PAHPs, and PIHPs to report to the State, to CMS, or to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) as appropriate, information on violations of law by subcontractors, providers, or enrollees of an MCO, PAHP, or PIHP and other individuals.
( c ) With respect to enrollees, the reporting requirement in paragraph (b)(3) of this section applies only to information on violations of law that pertain to enrollment in the plan, or the provision of, or payment for, health services.
( d ) The State may inspect, evaluate, and audit MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs at any time, as necessary, in instances where the State determines that there is a reasonable possibility of fraudulent or abusive activity.
[66 FR 2685, Jan. 11, 2011. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 27900, May 6, 2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ZAKUON A. BINAIRD, §

§ No. 270 , 201 6

Defendant Below

, §

Appellant, § Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§

STATE OF DELAWARE § No. 1410000295

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: January 18, 2017

Decided: January 18 , 2017

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ , Justices

.

O R D E R

T his 18 th day of January 201 7

, it appears to the Court that the judgment of

the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned

in its decision s dated January 22, 2016 1 and April 26, 2016. 2

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Cou rt is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 State v. Binaird

, 2016 WL 358990 (Del. Super. Jan. 22, 2016)

. 2 State v. Binaird

, 2016 WL 1735504 (Del. Super. Apr. 26, 2016).
Attachment 1 

The relief provided by Exemption No. 4416 is limited to the air carriers listed below1: 

Airlines for America 

Alaska Airlines, Inc. 

American Airlines, Inc. and/or US Airways, Inc. 

Atlas Air, Inc. 

Federal Express Corporation 

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. 

JetBlue Airways Corporation 

Southwest Airlines Co. 

United Airlines, Inc. 

United Parcel Service Co. 

Additional Certificate Holders2

Allegiant Air, LLC 

Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. 

Atlas Air, Inc. 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Dynamic International Airways 

Kalitta Air, LLC 

Miami Air International, Inc. 

Orange Air, LLC 

Polar Air Cargo, Worldwide, Inc. 

Southern Air, Inc. 

Spirit Airlines, Inc. 

Tantonduk Outfitters, LTD 

TEM Enterprises (DBA Xtra Airways) 

USA Jet Airlines 

Western Global Airlines

21 Air LLC. 

 

1 Attachment amended December 22, 2016. 2 Additional certificate holders petitioned for exemption through the following FAA Docket Numbers: Allegiant 

Air, LLC (FAA-2016-7037); Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (FAA-2016-9142); Atlas Air, Inc. (FAA-2016-9082); Delta 

Air Lines, Inc. (FAA-2016-9165) Dynamic International Airways (FAA-2016-9130); Kalitta Air, LLC (FAA-2016-

7034); Miami Air International, Inc. (FAA-2016-7036); Orange Air, LLC (FAA-2016-9359); Polar Air Cargo, 

Worldwide, Inc. (FAA-2016-9083); Southern Air, Inc. (FAA-2016-9076); Spirit Airlines, Inc. (FAA-2016-7406); 

Tantonduk Outfitters, LTD (FAA-2016-9094); TEM Enterprises (DBA Xtra Airways) (FAA-2016-9061); USA Jet 

Airlines (FAA-2016-9194); Western Global Airlines (FAA-2016-9093); 21 Air LLC (FAA-2016-9164).