alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAssisted Schools...Hamburg, Germany: International School of Hamburg: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Hamburg, Germany: International School of Hamburg: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 21, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +49-40-800-0500 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: info@ishamburg.org | Website: www.ishamburg.org| Special needs information can be found here.    
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Hamburg 2024 Special Needs Profile Germany) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **International School of Hamburg** (ISH) was founded in 1957 as Germany’s very first international school. It remains the only educational institution in Hamburg accredited by the Council of International Schools and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. ISH is an independent, coeducational, state-recognized, supplementary day school that serves students aged three (preschool/kindergarten) through grade 12. The school year comprises two semesters extending from late August to late June.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

GermanyOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
#### Eunice Breaux PEOPLES v. Eula Breaux GUIDRY.

No. 81-C-0018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1981.

In re Eula Breaux Guidry, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Writ of mandamus, and prohibition. Parish of Vermillion. 391 So.2d 596.

Not considered. Application not timely filed. La.Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 10, § 4(b).
#### § 423.2008 Parties to the proceedings on a request for an ALJ hearing.

The enrollee (or the enrollee's representative) who filed the request for hearing is the only party to the proceedings on a request for an ALJ hearing.

[82 FR 5127, Jan. 17, 2017]
# C_2006143EN.01001201.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia) — Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) v Commune di Bari, A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA

(Case C-410/04) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Local public transport service - Award with no call for tenders - Award by a public authority to an undertaking of which it owns the share capital)

(2006/C 143/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commune di Bari, A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Compatibility with Articles 46, 49 and 86 EC of national legislation permitting a municipality to award the management of a local public transport service to a company the share capital of which is wholly public — Award not made following the procedures laid down by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and transparency do not preclude national legislation which allows a public authority to award a contract for the provision of a public service directly to a company of which it wholly owns the share capital, provided that the public authority exercises over that company control comparable to that exercised over its own departments and that that company carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
HomeKey Topics – Office of Civil Rights...Reasonable Accommodation Policy

# 									Reasonable Accommodation Policy							

Office of Civil Rights

September 17, 2021

It is the policy of the U.S. Department of State to comply fully with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 *et seq.* The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 implementing the provisions of the law for federal agencies.

If you require a reasonable accommodation as an employee with a disability or as a qualified applicant with a disability, please contact the Disability and Reasonable Accommodations Division in the Office of Accessibility and Accommodations, Bureau of Global Talent Management (GTM/OAA/DRAD).  Employees may contact GTM/OAA/DRAD through GTM Next’s Employee Portal.  If you cannot access the GTM Next Employee Portal, please contact GTM/OAA/DRAD at OAA@state.gov.

The Department’s reasonable accommodation policy is published in the Foreign Affairs Manual at 3 FAM 3670.

The following forms are used in the reasonable accommodation process:
        - DS-5053 Reasonable Accommodation Request [122 KB]
        - DS-6546 Medical Questionnaire for Assessment of Disability/Reasonable Accommodation [200 KB]

If you as a qualified employee or applicant for employment with a disability believe you have been denied a reasonable accommodation for disability, please contact the Office of Civil Rights at (202) 647-9295 or socr_direct@state.gov within 45 days of the alleged failure to accommodate.

Tags

Civil RightsDiscriminationEmploymentEqual Opportunity

Back to Top
Order filed January 31, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00006-CV

____________

FERMIN FRANCO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND A/N/F OF KAMILA FRANCO 

AND DIEGO FRANCO, Appellants

V.

SONIA MORALES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-24798

ORDER

On August 22, 2018, appellant filed a brief that does not comply with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(g) 

because the brief does not give a contain a statement of facts. See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.1(g). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(h) because the brief does not 

contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body 

of the brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(i) 
because the brief must contain, under an appropriate heading, a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to 

the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1(j) 

because it does not contain a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of relief 

sought. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(j).

Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief. Appellant is ordered to file a 

brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by February 15, 

2019. If appellant files another brief that does not comply with Rule 38, the Court 

may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if 

appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). If appellant fails to 

timely file a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal may be dismissed for 

want of prosecution or the trial court’s judgment affirmed based on appellee’s 

brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), (3).

PER CURIAM
----

| Name of Subsidiary                | Jurisdiction of Incorporationor Organization |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                              |                                         |
| The San Francisco Company         | Delaware                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| First Bank                        | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| FB Holdings, LLC (1)              | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| FBIN, Inc.                        | Nevada                                       |
|                              |                                         |
| FBSA California, Inc.             | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| FBSA Missouri, Inc.               | Nevada                                       |
|                              |                                         |
| First Bank Business Capital, Inc. | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| First Land Trustee Corp.          | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| HVIIHC, Inc.                      | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| ILSIS, Inc.                       | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| LC Resolution Corporation         | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| NT Resolution Corporation         | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| SBRHC, Inc.                       | Missouri                                     |
|                              |                                         |
| Small Business Loan Source LLC    | Nevada                                       |

| (1) | First Bank owned 53.23% of FB Holdings, LLC at December 31, 2010. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.201 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: *Action* means one of the following: ( 1 ) A termination, suspension of, or reduction in covered benefits or services, including benefits or services for which there is a current approved prior authorization;
( 2 ) A termination, suspension of, or reduction in Medicaid eligibility, or an increase in beneficiary liability, including a determination that a beneficiary must incur a greater amount of medical expenses to establish income eligibility in accordance with § 435.121(e)(4) or § 435.831 of this chapter;
( 3 ) A determination that a beneficiary is subject to an increase in premiums or cost-sharing charges under subpart A of part 447 of this chapter; or
( 4 ) A determination by a skilled nursing facility or nursing facility to transfer or discharge a resident and an adverse determination by a State regarding the preadmission screening and resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act.
*Adverse determination* means a determination made in accordance with sections 1919(b)(3)(F) or 1919(e)(7)(B) of the Act that the individual does not require the level of services provided by a nursing facility or that the individual does or does not require specialized services.
*Date of action* means the intended date on which a termination, suspension, reduction, transfer or discharge becomes effective. It also means the date of the determination made by a State with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act.
*De novo hearing* means a hearing that starts over from the beginning.
*Evidentiary hearing* means a hearing conducted so that evidence may be presented.
*Joint fair hearing request* means a request for a Medicaid fair hearing which is included in an appeal request submitted to an Exchange or Exchange appeals entity under 45 CFR 155.520 or other insurance affordability program or appeals entity, in accordance with the signed agreement between the agency and an Exchange or Exchange appeals entity or other program or appeals entity described in § 435.1200(b)(3) of this chapter .
*Local evidentiary hearing* means a hearing held on the local or county level serving a specified portion of the State.
*Notice* means a written statement that meets the requirements of § 431.210.
*Request for a hearing* means a clear expression by the applicant or beneficiary, or his authorized representative, that he wants the opportunity to present his case to a reviewing authority.
*Send* means deliver by mail or in electronic format consistent with § 435.918 of this chapter.
*Service authorization request* means a managed care enrollee's request for the provision of a service.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 57 FR 56505, Nov. 30, 1992; 67 FR 41095, June 14, 2002; 78 FR 42301, July 15, 2013; 81 FR 86448, Nov. 30, 2016; 89 FR 8980, Feb. 8, 2024]
§ 456.122 Evaluation criteria for admission review. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) The committee develops written medical care criteria to assess the need for admission; and
( b ) The committee develops more extensive written criteria for cases that its experience shows are— ( 1 ) Associated with high costs;
( 2 ) Associated with the frequent furnishing of excessive services; or
( 3 ) Attended by physicians whose patterns of care are frequently found to be questionable.
No. 99-8998.

#### Prince *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Joseph Oussani, Appellant, *v.*Louis Olff, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order made by Mr. Justice O’Dwyer vacating an order of arrest. The action was brought by the service of a summons, the defendant appeared, the complaint was served May 31, 1898, and on June 17, 1898, the defendant served his verified answer. The action was brought to recover damages for injury to property, and on June 23, 1898, after the defendant had answered, an order of arrest was obtained under subdivision 2, section 449, Code.

Wahle & Stone (C. G. F. Wahle, of counsel), for appellant.

A. Pincus (A. S. Levy, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Order affirmed, with $10 cost and disbursements.

Present: McCarthy and Olcott, JJ.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.53 Fee schedule for clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, and mental health counselor services.

The fee schedule for clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, and mental health counselor services is set at 75 percent of the amount determined for clinical psychologist services under the physician fee schedule.

[88 FR 79530, Nov. 16, 2023]
#### William Alt, Respondent, *v.*Patrick K. Gray, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, fifth judicial district.

Hawke & Flannery, for appellant.

T. E. McKnight, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

For the reason assigned in the memorandum, handed down in action Ho. 1, between these parties, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
HomeFisheries Status Lists...5. Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, done at Washington May 21, 1998.

# 									5. Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, done at Washington May 21, 1998.							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force February 15, 1999.

In accordance with Article XXV, the Agreement is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the Signatories in accordance with their domestic laws and procedures and, in accordance with Article XXVI, the Agreement shall remain open to accession by any State or regional economic integration organization that meets the requirements in Article XXIV, or is otherwise invited to accede to the Agreement on the basis of a decision by the Parties.

In accordance with Article XXVII, paragraph 1, the Agreement entered into force upon deposit of the fourth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary [the Government of the United States of America]. In accordance with Article XXVII, paragraph 2, after entry into force of the Agreement, with respect to each State or regional economic integration organization that meets the requirements of Article XXVI, the Agreement will enter into force for each State or regional economic integration organization upon deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
Download Status List						 [535 KB]

Tags

FisheriesMultilateralTreaties

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie GREEN.

No. 66457.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Willie Green applying for remedial writ. Orleans Parish. No. 251-453.

Not considered. Relator must first file with district court.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 34

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively restore a

100 percent deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed

individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mrs. LAMBERT LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively

restore a 100 percent deduction for the health insurance

costs of self-employed individuals.

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 ‘‘Health Insurance

5 Equity Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 34 IH

1 SEC. 2. FULL DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS

2 OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS BEGIN3 NING IN 1994.

4 (a) DEDUCTION MADE PERMANENT.—Subsection (l)

5 of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re6 lating to special rules for health insurance costs of self7 employed individuals) is amended by striking paragraph

8 (6).

9 (b) DEDUCTION INCREASED TO 100 PERCENT.—

10 Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of such Code is amended

11 by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘100 percent’’.

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

14 December 31, 1993.

Æ
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Dwight Spencer BAUGUS et al., Respondents.

No. 45171.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1975.

Certiorari dismissed. 289 So.2d 61.

ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and ERVIN (Ret.), J., concur.

OVERTON, J., dissents.
#### UNITED STATES v. NEDERLANDSH-AMERIKAAN-SCHE STOOMVART MAATSCHAPPIJ (HOLLAND-AMERICA LINE) v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 522 ; 254 U. S., 148.]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the • court below. On appeal the judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court decided:

A foreign steamship company alleged that, under duress practiced by the immigration authorities, it paid bills rendered by them under color of the Immigration Act for maintenance and *467medical care furnished by the United States to certain immigrants who, after landing from the company’s ships, were •temporarily detained before being admitted to the country, and it claimed. reimbursement under the Tucker Act upon the ground that the exactions were in violation of its rights as an alien subject, secured by the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. *Held,*that the claim, being founded on alleged torts of Federál officials, was not within the Tucker Act or the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 6, 1920.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30180 Summary Calendar

CLARENCE J TOLBERT Petitioner-Appellant

v. BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:04-CV-822
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * ClarenceJ. Tolbert, Louisiana prisoner # 351590, appeals from the district court’s denial of his application f or habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Tolbert challenges his conviction of attempted distribution of cocaine. Tolbert contends that trial counsel, Keith Lewis, was ineffective for failing to pursue any pretrial motions. He contends that Lewis was ineffective for failing to conduct discovery, view the State’s evidence, or obtain information from his previous attorney. He argues that Lewis was ineffective for failing to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-30180

2 meet with him before trial to discuss the case, and that Lewis’s failure to meet with him is sufficient to demonstrate a constructive denial of counsel not requiring him todemonstrate prejudice, pursuant to United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984). Tolbert has not shown the complete failure ofcounsel required to bring his
case under the rule of C ronic

. See Bell v. Cone

, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002); Gochicoa v. Johnson, 238 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 2000). Tolbert does not argue that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Nor does he present arguments for any of counsel’s alleged deficiencies other than not meeting with him. Because Tolbert is represented by counsel, his brief is not entitled to liberal construction. See Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Tolbert has failed to brief those issues for appeal. S ee Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

238) ll-K-(I) -51 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 238 of 325 
P.2 

Ik " o 

II-K-(I)-51 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL FOR COAL USE IN THE 

INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. 

EEA, Inc. 

March 15, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-51