alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

§ 457.1160 Program specific review process: Time frames. ( a ) *Eligibility or enrollment matter.* A State must complete the review of a matter described in § 457.1130(a) within a reasonable amount of time. In setting time frames, the State must consider the need for expedited review when there is an immediate need for health services.
( b ) *Health services matter.* The State must ensure that reviews are completed in accordance with the medical needs of the patient. If the medical needs of the patient do not dictate a shorter time frame, the review must be completed within the following time frames: ( 1 ) *Standard timeframe.* A State must ensure that external review, as described in § 457.1150(b), is completed within 90 calendar days of the date an enrollee requests internal (if available) or external review. If both internal and external review are available to the enrollee, both types of review must be completed within the 90 calendar day period.
( 2 ) *Expedited timeframe.* A State must ensure that external review, as described in § 457.1150(b), is completed within 72 hours of the time an enrollee requests external review, if the enrollee's physician or health plan determines that operating under the standard time frame could seriously jeopardize the enrollee's life or health or ability to attain, maintain or regain maximum function. If the enrollee has access to internal and external review, then each level of review may take no more than 72 hours. The State may extend the 72-hour time frame by up to 14 calendar days, if the enrollee requests an extension.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3387 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3387

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 1996

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located 
at 1420 Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, Georgia, as the ``J. 
     Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conservation Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF J. PHIL CAMPBELL, SENIOR NATURAL RESOURCE 
              CONSERVATION CENTER.

    The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located at 1420 
Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource 
Conservation Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``J. Phil Campbell, Senior 
Natural Resource Conservation Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Linda Nave,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-445

Lower Tribunal No. 21-CF-755

_____________________________

SHANNON SIMS,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Bruce Kyle, Judge.

November 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WHITE, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3478 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3478

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate tax deductions 
     for advertising and goodwill expenditures relating to alcohol 
                               beverages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1996

      Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
Faleomavaega, and Mr. Fattah) 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 eliminate tax deductions 
     for advertising and goodwill expenditures relating to alcohol 
                               beverages.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Alcohol Promotion and 
Advertising Tax Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING AND GOODWILL EXPENSES 
              RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

    (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items not deductible) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 280I. ADVERTISING AND GOODWILL EXPENDITURES RELATING TO 
              ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

    ``(a) In General.--No deduction otherwise allowable under this 
chapter shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred to advertise 
(by means of television, radio, other electronic means, newspaper or 
other periodical, billboard, or any other means), or promote goodwill 
regarding, any alcoholic beverage.
    ``(b) Alcoholic Beverage.--For purposes of this section, the term 
`alcoholic beverage' means any item which is subject to tax under 
subpart A, C, or D of part I of subchapter A of chapter 51 (relating to 
taxes on distilled spirits, wines, and beer).''
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IX of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
the following new item:

                              ``Sec. 280I. Advertising and goodwill 
                                        expenditures relating to 
                                        alcoholic beverages.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10.12    
    


 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION  


            The following compensation arrangements have been established for the Board of Directors of the Company: All outside directors will
receive an annual retainer of $25,000. The chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Risk Oversight Committee, and the Nominating / Governance Committee will for this
service receive retainers of $10,000, of $7,000, of $5,000, and of $5,000 respectively. Outside directors also receive a meeting fee of $1,000 for each Board and Committee meeting attended. Outside
directors also receive an annual grant of $40,000 of restricted stock, which stock has 3-year cliff vesting. Directors have the option to receive their $25,000 annual retainer in the form
of stock at a 25% premium (i.e., $31,250 of stock) if they agree to hold the stock for at least one year. No separate compensation is paid to directors who are also employees of the Company. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.12
§ 456.602 Inspection team. ( a ) A team, as described in this section and § 456.603 must periodically inspect the care and services provided to beneficiaries in each facility.
( b ) Each team conducting periodic inspections must have a least one member who is at physician or registered nurse and other appropriate health and social service personnel.
( c ) For an IMD other than an ICF, each team must have a psychiatrist or physician knowledgeable about mental institutions and other appropriate mental health and social service personnel.
( d ) For an ICF that primarily cares for mental patients, each team must have at least one member who knows the problems and needs of mentally retarded individuals.
( e ) For an institution for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities or persons with related conditions, each team must have at least one member who knows the problems and needs of mentally retarded individuals.
( f ) For ICFs primarily serving individuals 65 years of age or older, each team must have at least one member who knows the problems and needs of those individuals.
( g ) If there is no physician on the team, the Medicaid agency must insure that a physician is available to provide consultation to the team.
( h ) If a team has one or more physicians, it must be supervised by a physician.
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...El Salvador (20-1210) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Claims

# 									El Salvador (20-1210) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Claims							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 10, 2020

Migration and Refugees: Asylum Cooperation

Signed at Washington September 20, 2019; entered into force December 10, 2020.
Download Agreement						 [612 KB]

Tags

AsylumEl SalvadorMigrationRefugeesTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 440.380 Statewideness.

States have the option to amend their State plan to provide benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage to individuals without regard to statewideness.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Lukas Braunschweiler, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Dionex Corporation, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2007, and to which thisCertification is attached (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of our operations.   By: /s/ Lukas Braunschweiler   Name: Lukas Braunschweiler  Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Dated: August 29, 2007
§ 440.150 Intermediate care facility (ICF/IID) services. ( a ) “ICF/IID services” means those items and services furnished in an intermediate care facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The facility fully meets the requirements for a State license to provide services that are above the level of room and board;
( 2 ) The primary purpose of the ICF/IID is to furnish health or rehabilitative services to persons with Intellectual Disability or persons with related conditions;
( 3 ) The ICF/IID meets the standards specified in subpart I of part 483 of this chapter.
( 4 ) The beneficiary with Intellectual Disability for whom payment is requested is receiving active treatment, as specified in § 483.440 of this chapter.
( 5 ) The ICF/IID has been certified to meet the requirements of subpart C of part 442 of this chapter, as evidenced by a valid agreement between the Medicaid agency and the facility for furnishing ICF/IID services and making payments for these services under the plan.
( b ) ICF/IID services may be furnished in a distinct part of a facility other than an ICF/IID if the distinct part— ( 1 ) Meets all requirements for an ICF/IID, as specified in subpart I of part 483 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Is clearly an identifiable living unit, such as an entire ward, wing, floor or building;
( 3 ) Consists of all beds and related services in the unit;
( 4 ) Houses all beneficiaries for whom payment is being made for ICF/IID services; and
( 5 ) Is approved in writing by the survey agency.
[59 FR 56234, Nov. 10, 1994]
# Labor Day, 2009

Since our Nation's founding, working Americans have carried us through times of challenge and uncertainty and propelled America through eras of peace and prosperity. They have long formed the backbone of our Nation's economy, and they will continue to lead our Nation to new heights in the years to come.

Working Americans helped lay the foundation for our Nation's progress over the generations. Brick by brick, they built the infrastructure that powered the engine of our economy. With firm resolve and commitment, they constructed our cities and towns, and with unparalleled skill they manufactured the goods and provided the services needed by Americans and people around the world. They have prepared our children for the challenges ahead and cared for the sick and the elderly. Today, we commemorate the many contributions labor has made to our Nation.

Throughout its history, the labor movement has given voice to the aspirations and concerns of millions of men and women. By fighting for decent working conditions, as well as fair wages and benefits, organized labor has stood for the rights of everyday Americans. With determination and commitment, labor has advocated for all working families and all have benefited from the fruits of their struggles.

Today, we find ourselves in an era of great challenges. The economic crisis we face is vast and complex. Americans understand the consequences: dwindling savings for young families, a daunting choice between prescriptions and groceries for our seniors, and fading hopes for a college education for our young people. Just as they have so many times in our history, working Americans will help our Nation emerge from this crisis and lead us into a new era of prosperity and progress.

This Labor Day, as we honor our workers, and we renew our commitment to uphold the American Dream and the founding promise of our Nation: in America, we can make of our lives what we will, and all things are possible for all people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 7, 2009, as Labor Day. I call upon public officials and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that acknowledge the tremendous contributions of working Americans and their families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. E9-21988

Billing code 3195-W9-P
Exhibit 10(i)(h)


 


EXERCISE OF OPTION TO EXTEND AND


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


CHARTER PARTY


(THE “CHARTERPARTY”)


DATED OCTOBER 6, 2005


BETWEEN


REBECCA TANKER CORPORATION (THE “OWNERS”)


AND


DHT REBECCA AFRAMAX CORP. (THE “CHARTERERS”)


FOR THE VESSEL


OVERSEAS REBECCA


 


Pursuant to clause 99 of the Charterparty, the Charterers hereby
declare, as of November 26, 2008, the exercise of the first 18 months of
the option period which shall commence on October 17, 2010 at 0001 hours
GMT and end on April 16, 2012 at 2400 hours GMT (the “Option
Period”).


 


For that portion of the Option Period commencing on October 17,
2010 at 0001 hours GMT and ending on October 16, 2011 at 2400 hours GMT,
the rate shall be usd 19,400 per day.


 


For that portion of the Option Period commencing on October 17,
2011 at 0001 hours GMT and ending on April 16, 2012 at 2400 hours GMT, the
rate shall be usd 19,700 per day.


 


As of the date of this agreement, the Owners and the Charterers hereby
amend the terms of the Charterparty as follows:


 


(1) Notwithstanding clause 99, for the balance of the period
subject to options,  the Charterers are
hereby granted the option to select periods equal to: (a)  12 months, 24
months or 36 months; or (b) on one occasion only,  a single period equal to 6 months, 18 months,
30 months or 42 months.


 


(2) Except as expressly 
amended by this agreement, including the declaration of the Option
Period by the Charterers and its acceptance by the Owners, the terms and
conditions of the Charterparty remain unchanged and in full force and effect
including, without limitation,  the
profit sharing arrangement between the Owners and the Charterers.


 


January 15, 2009


 


	
  For Rebecca
  Tanker Corporation

  	
   

  	
  For DHT
  Rebecca Aframax Corp.

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Ole Jacob
  Diesen

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/Mats
  Berglund

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Ole Jacob
  Diesen

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Mats
  Berglund

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice
  President

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President
§ 438.610 Prohibited affiliations. ( a ) An MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity may not knowingly have a relationship of the type described in paragraph (c) of this section with the following: ( 1 ) An individual or entity that is debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from participating in procurement activities under the Federal Acquisition Regulation or from participating in nonprocurement activities under regulations issued under Executive Order No. 12549 or under guidelines implementing Executive Order No. 12549.
( 2 ) An individual or entity who is an affiliate, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR 2.101, of a person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) An MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity may not have a relationship with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 or 1128A of the Act.
( c ) The relationships described in paragraph (a) of this section, are as follows: ( 1 ) A director, officer, or partner of the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM. or PCCM entity.
( 2 ) A subcontractor of the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity, as governed by § 438.230.
( 3 ) A person with beneficial ownership of 5 percent or more of the MCO's, PIHP's, PAHP's, PCCM's, or PCCM entity's equity.
( 4 ) A network provider or person with an employment, consulting or other arrangement with the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity for the provision of items and services that are significant and material to the MCO's, PIHP's, PAHP's, PCCM's, or PCCM entity's obligations under its contract with the State.
( d ) If a State finds that an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity is not in compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the State: ( 1 ) Must notify the Secretary of the noncompliance.
( 2 ) May continue an existing agreement with the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity unless the Secretary directs otherwise.
( 3 ) May not renew or otherwise extend the duration of an existing agreement with the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, or PCCM entity unless the Secretary provides to the State and to Congress a written statement describing compelling reasons that exist for renewing or extending the agreement despite the prohibited affiliations.
( 4 ) Nothing in this section must be construed to limit or otherwise affect any remedies available to the U.S. under sections 1128, 1128A or 1128B of the Act.
( e ) *Consultation with the Inspector General.* Any action by the Secretary described in paragraphs (d)(2) or (3) of this section is taken in consultation with the Inspector General.
#### Roy S. OHLHAUSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary N. BROWN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13874.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 12, 1979.

James L. Fortson, Jr., Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Love, Rigby, Dehan, Love & McDaniel by Kenneth Rigby, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

Before HALL, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

HALL, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a partial summary judgment dismissing his demands for damages for defendant’s alleged alienation of *788the affections of plaintiff’s wife. We affirm.

Plaintiff filed a petition seeking damages from defendant, asserting two separate causes of action — defamation and alienation of affections. Defendant filed a contradictory motion for a partial summary judgment, an alternative motion to strike, and an alternative motion for a judgment on the pleadings, all seeking to eliminate plaintiff’s demands based upon the alienation of affections cause of action. A hearing was ordered. Defendant then filed peremptory exceptions of no cause and no right of action as to both of plaintiff’s causes of action. This exception was sustained only as to the defamation action, with leave of plaintiff to amend his petition within ten days, which he did. The trial court also rendered judgment in favor of defendant on his motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s demands for damages for alienation of affections. After plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied, he appealed from the partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff assigns two errors to the trial court’s judgment. The first is that the trial court erred in holding Louisiana has no recognized cause of action for alienation of affections, and the second is that the trial court erred in holding there was no cause of action for inducing a breach of contract.

The Supreme Court in *Moulin v. Monteleone,*165 La. 169, 115 So. 447 (1927), squarely held that in Louisiana there is no cause of action for alienation of affections and that one party to a contract has no cause of action for damages against a person, not a party to the contract, who induces another party to breach the contract. See also *Cust v. Item Co.,*200 La. 515, 8 So.2d 361 (1942) and *Delta Finance Company of Louisiana v. Graves,*180 So.2d 85 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965).

Plaintiff concedes that the well-established jurisprudence of this state is as stated above, but urges this court to reexamine the holding of *Moulin v. Monteleone*and subsequent cases. Plaintiff points out that the Supreme Court has not considered the inducement of breach of contract issue in many years and that the courts of several common law states have changed their position on this issue in recent years.

This court is not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument and is constrained to follow the settled jurisprudence of this state as clearly expressed by the Supreme Court and consistently adhered to by the Courts of Appeal.

We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court, at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.