alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41131.

#### McLAUGHLIN v. FARMERS GIN COMPANY, INC.

Hall, Judge.

In this action the plaintiff alleged that the defendant employed him, for a fee of $2,000, to prepare its tax returns for the years 1960 and 1961 and to obtain a tax refund for the year 1955; and thereafter the Federal Government made assessments against the defendant for taxes due for past years, and the plaintiff represented the defendant with respect to these assessments in addition to performing the services for which the defendant originally employed him, and services in this additional matter had a value of $1,400, *90which the defendant refused to pay. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and, the plaintiff assigns error on the overruling of his motion for new trial. *Held:*

Decided January 27, 1965.

*Clyde W. Chapman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dallam R. Jackson,*contra.

The evidence was in conflict on the issue whether all the work performed by the plaintiff was understood between the parties to be covered by the agreement that the plaintiff would be paid $2,000 for his services. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial. *F. N. Roberts Corp. v. Southern Oxygen Supply,*106 Ga. App. 540, 541 (127 SE2d 488); *Lundin v. Kuniansky,*107 Ga. App. 774, 775 (131 SE2d 219).

The special grounds of the motion for new trial complain of portions of the charge on the ground that they did not inform the jury that the plaintiff might be entitled to an amount less than that sued for, if the jury so found from the evidence. The excerpts complained of were not erroneous when considered in context with the whole charge, which correctly instructed the jury to the effect that, if the plaintiff rendered and the defendant accepted services as the plaintiff contended, there was an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay the reasonable value thereof *(Code*§ 3-107), and the question of the value of the plaintiff's services was one of fact for the sole determination of the jury. *Turner v. Hardy,*198 Ga. 626, 643 (32 SE2d 483); *Pollard v. Gammon,*63 Ga. App. 852, 862 (12 SE2d 624); *Venable v. Gresham,*105 Ga. App. 720, 722, 724 (125 SE2d 507).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 176 (Monday, September 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22191]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date:  9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time). September 24, 2009.

Place:  4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

Status:  Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

Matters To Be Considered

Parts Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the August 17, 2009 Board member meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
    b. Monthly Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.
3. Annual Budget Report.
    a. Fiscal Year 2009 Results.
    b. Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.
    c. Fiscal Year 2011 Estimate.

Parts Closed to the Public

4. Proprietary Information.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. E9-22191 Filed 9-10-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
HomeDSS Press Releases...Leader of International Money Laundering Network Sentenced for Laundering Millions of Dollars in Drug Proceeds

# 									Leader of International Money Laundering Network Sentenced for Laundering Millions of Dollars in Drug Proceeds							

DSS Releases

September 12, 2023

For Immediate Release – September 12, 2023

Click here to read more about this

Tags

Combating Drugs and CrimeDrugsDSS ReleasesVirginia

Back to Top
§ 486.328 Condition: Reporting of data. ( a ) An OPO must provide individually-identifiable, hospital-specific organ donation and transplantation data and other information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and HHS, as requested by the Secretary. The data may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Number of hospital deaths;
( 2 ) Results of death record reviews;
( 3 ) Number and timeliness of referral calls from hospitals;
( 4 ) [Reserved]
( 5 ) Data related to non-recovery of organs;
( 6 ) Data about consents for donation;
( 7 ) Number of donors;
( 8 ) Number of organs recovered, by type of organ; and
( 9 ) Number of organs transplanted, by type of organ.
( b ) An OPO must provide hospital-specific organ donation data annually to the transplant hospitals with which it has agreements.
( c ) Data to be used for OPO re-certification purposes must be reported to the OPTN and must include data for all deaths in all hospitals and critical access hospitals in the OPO's donation service area, unless a hospital or critical access hospital has been granted a waiver to work with a different OPO.
( d ) Data reported by the OPO to the OPTN must be reported within 30 days after the end of the month in which a death occurred. If an OPO determines through death record review or other means that the data it reported to the OPTN was incorrect, it must report the corrected data to the OPTN within 30 days of the end of the month in which the error is identified.
( e ) For the purpose of determining the information to be collected under paragraph (a) of this section, the following definitions apply: ( 1 ) *Kidneys procured.* Each kidney recovered will be counted individually. En bloc kidneys recovered will count as two kidneys procured.
( 2 ) *Kidneys transplanted.* Each kidney transplanted will be counted individually. En bloc kidney transplants will be counted as two kidneys transplanted.
( 3 ) *Extra-renal organs procured.* Each organ recovered is counted individually.
( 4 ) *Extra-renal organs transplanted.* Each organ or part thereof transplanted will be counted individually. For example, a single liver is counted as one organ procured and each portion that is transplanted will count as one transplant. Further, a heart and double lung transplant will be counted as three organs transplanted. A kidney/pancreas transplant will count as one kidney transplanted and one extra-renal organ transplanted.
[71 FR 31046, May 31, 2006, as amended at 85 FR 77949, Dec. 2, 2020]
#### Martin HOLLAND and Holland Machinery Co., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. FUNDING SYSTEMS LEASING CORP., a New York Corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 10, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22437]


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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 74 FR 45487 
(September 2, 2009).

Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: 3 p.m., Monday, 
September 14, 2009.

Changes in the Meeting: The matters to be considered included two 
items: consideration and adoption of FY 2011 budget and election of 
vice chairman. The revised agenda consists of one item: Consideration 
and adoption of FY 2011 budget.

Contact Person for More Information: Stephen L. Sharfman, General 
Counsel, 202-789-6824 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acdfd8c9dcc4c9c282dfc4cddecac1cdc2ecdcdecf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a696e7f6a727f743469727b687c777b745a6a6879347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22437 Filed 9-14-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Home1996 Treaties and Agreements...Mexico (96-1111) – Protocol for the Provision of Direct-To-Home Satellite Services

# 									Mexico (96-1111) – Protocol for the Provision of Direct-To-Home Satellite Services							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

November 11, 1996

Telecommunication:  Direct-To-Home Satellite Services

Protocol signed at Washington November 8, 1996; entered into force November 11, 1996. With exchange of letters.
Download Agreement						 [12 MB]

Tags

MexicoTelecommunicationsTreatiesTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
§ 426.444 Dismissals for cause. ( a ) The ALJ may, at the request of any party, or on his or her own motion, dismiss a complaint if the aggrieved party fails to do either of the following: ( 1 ) Attend or participate in a prehearing conference (the pre-hearing may be conducted by telephone) or hearing without good cause shown.
( 2 ) Comply with a lawful order of the ALJ without good cause shown.
( b ) The ALJ must dismiss any complaint concerning LCD provision(s) if the following conditions exist: ( 1 ) The ALJ does not have the authority to rule on that provision under § 426.405(d).
( 2 ) The complaint is not timely. (See § 426.400(b).)
( 3 ) The complaint is not filed by an aggrieved party.
( 4 ) The complaint is filed by an individual who fails to provide an adequate statement of need for the service from the treating physician.
( 5 ) The complaint challenges a provision or provisions of an NCD. (See § 426.405, regarding the authority of the ALJ.)
( 6 ) The contractor notifies the ALJ that the LCD provision(s) is (are) no longer in effect.
( 7 ) The aggrieved party withdraws the complaint. (See § 426.423 for requirements related to withdrawing a complaint regarding an LCD under review.)
PUBLIC LAW 114–209—JULY 29, 2016 130 STAT. 823 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4877: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

May 23, considered and passed House. 

July 14, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–209 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3130 Grants 

Lake Boulevard in Sugar Land, Texas, as the ‘‘LCpl Garrett W. Gamble, USMC 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LCPL GARRETT W. GAMBLE, USMC POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3130 Grants Lake Boulevard in Sugar Land, 

Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘LCpl Garrett W. 

Gamble, USMC Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘LCpl Garrett W. Gamble, USMC Post Office Building’’. 

Approved July 29, 2016. 

July 29, 2016 

[H.R. 4877] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### McNeill *v.*Henderson & Hill.

*Trover-and Conversion.*

(Decided April 13, 1911.

55 South. 269.)

*Chattel Mortgages; J^ien; Crops.*— A mortgagor of a crop to be grown must have some interest or estate in the land on which the crop is to be grown at the time of the execution - of the mortgage to confer on the mortgagee a lien superior to a mortgage executed after the crop was planted and while the mortgagor had an interest in the land.

Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court-

Hearcl before Hon. J. C. Richardson.

Action by Henderson & Hill against J. W. McNeill. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiffs claim under crop mortgages executed to them by one Neal Turner on December 7, 1905, and on January 27, 1907, respectively. The defendant claimed under a crop mortgage from Neal Turner executed January 11, 1907. The defendant requested the following charge: (2) “The court charges the jury that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover under the mortgage executed in 1905, unless they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Neal Turner either owns or had some interest in the land on which the cotton involved in this suit was raised at the time said mortgage was executed.”

R. L. Harmon, and M. W. Rtjsht'on, for appellant.

The court erred in refusing to give charges 2 and 3 requested by the defendant, and also erred in overruling motion for new *trial.*— Wyndham *& Co. v. Stevens &*Alexander, 156 Ala. 341, where the cases are collected; sec. 3376, Code 1907.

*406Frank B. Bricken, for appellee.

No brief came to the Reporter.

WALKER, P. J.

The plaintiffs rested their claim to the cotton alleged to have been converted upon two crop mortgages made to them by one Neal Turner, one of which was executed on December 7, 1905, and the other on January 26, 1907. There was proof of defendant’s ownership of a mortgage of Neal Turner, bearing date January 11, 1907, covering crops raised by him or in which he was interested in Crenshaw county during the year 1907, which mortgage was filed for record on January 14, 1907. The cotton in question was part of the crop grown in 1907 on land in Crenshaw county rented by Neal Turner.

There was no evidence that, at the time of the execution of the mortgage bearing date December 7, 1905, the mortgagor, Neal Turner owned or had any interest in the lands upon which the crop was grown in 1907. It was material for the plaintiffs to sustain their claim under this mortgage, as the mortgage they received in 1907 was executed after the mortgage which was acquired by the defendant had been recorded. In this state of the evidence, it was error to refuse the written charge, numbered 2, requested by the defendant. The rule is established that a mortgage on crops to be grown in the future does not create a specific lien upon such crops, unless at the time of the execution of such mortgage the mortgagor owned or had some interest in the land upon which the crops we,re *grown.*—Windham *& Co. v. Stephenson &*Alexander, 156 Ala. 341, 47 South. 280, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 910, 130 Am. St. Rep. 102.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 495.324 Prior approval conditions. ( a ) A State must obtain prior written approval as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, when the State plans to initiate planning and implementation activities in support of Medicaid provider incentive payments encouraging the adoption and meaningful use of certified EHR technology with proposed Federal financial participation.
( b ) To receive 90 percent match, each State must receive prior approval for all of the following: ( 1 ) The HIT advance planning document and the implementation advance planning document.
( 2 ) For the acquisition solicitation documents and any contract that a State may utilize to complete activities under this subpart, unless specifically exempted by the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to release of the acquisition solicitation documents or prior to execution of the contract, when the contract is anticipated to or will exceed $500,000.
( 3 ) For contract amendments, unless specifically exempted by the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to execution of the contract amendment, involving contract cost increases exceeding $500,000 or contract time extensions of more than 60 days.
( 4 ) The State Medicaid HIT plan.
( c ) Failure to submit any of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section to the satisfaction of HHS may result in disapproval or suspension of project funding.
( d ) A State must obtain prior written approval from HHS of its justification for a sole source acquisition, when it plans to acquire noncompetitively from a nongovernmental source HIT equipment or services, with proposed FFP under this subpart if the total State and Federal acquisition cost is more than $500,000.
[75 FR 44565, July 28, 2010, as amended at 83 FR 41711, Aug. 17, 2018]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James Paul LUMKINS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 55351.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1974.

In re: James Paul Lumkins applying for Writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. On the basis of the evi-dentiary hearing and of the lunacy commission medical witnesses, we find the factual basis does not support the petitioner’s allegations.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE

HEALTH SERVICES,

Appellant,

v.

GUSTAVO RESENDIZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00273-CV

Appeal from the

168th Judicial District Court

of El Paso, Texas

(TC #320710168)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the part 

of the judgment denying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction on Appellee’s claims of national 

origin, disability, and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation and quid pro quo sexual 

harassment claims. The part of the judgment denying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction on 

Appellee’s claim of sexual harassment based on hostile work environment is affirmed. We 

therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment in part and affirm in part, and we remand this matter 

to the trial court for further proceedings based solely on Appellee’s claim of hostile work 

environment. We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On Ongoing Events in Burkina Faso

# 									On Ongoing Events in Burkina Faso							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

January 24, 2022

The United States is deeply concerned by events in Burkina Faso. We note that military officers have asserted that they have dissolved the government and national assembly and suspended the constitution. We are also deeply concerned by reports of the January 23 detention of Burkina Faso’s President, Roch Marc Kaboré, by members of Burkina Faso’s military. We condemn these acts and call on those responsible to deescalate the situation, prevent harm to President Kaboré and any other members of his government in detention, and return to civilian-led government and constitutional order. We acknowledge the tremendous stress on Burkinabé society and security forces posed by ISIS and JNIM but urge military officers to step back, return to their barracks, and address their concerns through dialogue. The United States is closely monitoring this fluid situation, and we call for restraint by all actors as we carefully review the events on the ground for any potential impact on our assistance.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBurkina FasoOffice of the Spokesperson

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

#### § 431.712 Failure to comply with standards.

The agency or board must investigate and act on all complaints it receives of violations of standards.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0

                             SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Beduin Nova Scotia Company
Belle Gate Investment B.V.
Dakota Scientific Software, Inc.
Diba, Inc.
Diba Europe Limited
Integrity Arts, Inc.
i-Planet, Inc.
Lighthouse Design, Ltd.
Lighthouse Design R&D Corporation
MAXSTRAT Corporation
MAXSTRAT FS Corporation
NetDynamics International, Inc.
NetDynamics Europe Limited
Sun Microsystems K.K
Red Cape Software, Inc.
Sarrus Software, Inc.
Solaris Corporation
Star Division Corporation
Star Office GmbH
Sun Microsystems (Barbados), Ltd.
Sun Microsystems (Schweiz) A.G
Sun Microsystems AB
Sun Microsystems AO
Sun Microsystems AS
Sun Microsystems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Sun Microsystems Belgium N.V./S.A.
Sun Microsystems Benelux B.V.
Sun Microsystems Bilgisayar Sistemleri Limited Sirketi
Sun Microsystems Czech s.r.o
Sun Microsystems Distributions International, Inc.
Sun Microsystems Danmark A/S
Sun Microsystems (Egypt) LLC
Sun Microsystems Europe Properties, Inc.
Sun Microsystems Europe Properties B.V
Sun Microsystems Federal, Inc.
Sun Microsystems France S.A.
Sun Microsystems GmbH
Sun Microsystems (Hellas) S.A.
Sun Microsystems Holdings Limited
Sun Microsystems Hungary Computing Limited
Liability Company
Sun Microsystems Iberica, S.A.
Sun Microsystems India Private Limited
Sun Microsystems Intercontinental Operations
Sun Microsystems International, Inc.
Sun Microsystems International B.V.
Sun Microsystems Ireland Limited
Sun Microsystems Italia S.p.A.
Sun Microsystems Korea, Ltd.
Sun Microsystems Limited
Sun Microsystems Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
Sun Microsystems Management Services Corporation
Sun Microsystems Nederland B.V.
Sun Microsystems (NZ) Limited
Sun Microsystems Oy
Sun Microsystems Poland Sp.z.o.o.
Sun Microsystems (Portugal) Tecnias de
Informatica, Sociedade Unipessdal, Limitada
Sun Microsystems Properties, Inc.
Sun Microsystems Pte. Ltd.
Sun Microsystems Saudi Arabia B.V.
Sun Microsystems Scotland B.V.
Sun Microsystems Scotland Limited
Sun Microsystems Slovakia, s.r.o.
Sun Microsystems (South Africa) (Pty) Limited
Sun Microsystems Superannuation Nominees Pty.
Ltd.
Sun Microsystems (Thailand) Limited
Sun Microsystems (U.A.E.) Ltd.
Sun Microsystems de Chile S.A.
Sun Microsystems de Colombia, S.A.
Sun Microsystems de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Sun Microsystems de Venezuela, S. A.
Sun Microsystems do Brasil Industria e Comercio
Ltda.
Sun Microsystems of California, Inc.
Sun Microsystems of California, Limited
Sun Microsystems of Canada Inc.
Sun Microsystems China Ltd.
Sun TSI Subsidiary, Inc.
SunSoft, Inc.
SunSoft International, Inc.
Solaris Indemnity, Ltd.
Solaris Assurance, Inc.
Sun Microsystems Risk Management, Inc.
Sun Microsystems Taiwan Limited
Sun Microsystems Israel Limited
Sun Microsystems Technology Pty. Ltd.
Sun Microsystems (China) Co., Ltd.
Sun Microsystems de Argentina S.A.