alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 440.345 EPSDT and other required benefits. ( a ) The State must assure access to early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment (EPSDT) services through benchmark or benchmark-equivalent plan benefits or as additional benefits provided by the State for any child under 21 years of age eligible under the State plan in a category under section 1902(a)(10)(A) of the Act. ( 1 ) Sufficiency. Any additional EPSDT benefits not provided by the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent plan must be sufficient so that, in combination with the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent benefits plan, these individuals have access to the full EPSDT benefit.
( 2 ) State Plan requirement. The State must include a description of how the additional benefits will be provided, how access to additional benefits will be coordinated and how beneficiaries and providers will be informed of these processes in order to ensure that these individuals have access to the full EPSDT benefit.
( b ) *Family planning.* Alternative Benefit Plans must include coverage for family planning services and supplies.
( c ) *Mental health parity.* Alternative Benefit Plans that provide both medical and surgical benefits, and mental health or substance use disorder benefits, must comply with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.
( d ) *Essential health benefits.* Alternative Benefit Plans must include at least the essential health benefits described in § 440.347, and include all updates or modifications made thereafter by the Secretary to the definition of essential health benefits.
( e ) *Updating of benefits.* States are not required to update Alternative Benefit Plans that have been determined to include essential health benefits as of January 1, 2014, until December 31, 2015. States will adhere to future guidance for updating benefits beyond that date, as described by the Secretary.
( f ) *Covered outpatient drugs.* To the extent states pay for covered outpatient drugs under their Alternative Benefit Plan's prescription drug coverage, states must comply with the requirements under section 1927 of the Act.
[75 FR 23101, Apr. 30, 2010, as amended at 78 FR 42306, July 15, 2013]
****

This chart presents 1997 Indiana exports to the Newly IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union.  Data used to create the chart werecollected by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,with further analysis by the University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). Formore information call BISNIS at (202) 482-4655 or visit the MISER websiteat www.umass.edu/miser.
'96 export data for Indiana
'95 export data for Indiana
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
HomeTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program...Maximilian Rivkin

# 									Maximilian Rivkin							

Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

June 7, 2023

**WANTED: MAXIMILIAN RIVKIN****REWARD OF UP TO $5 MILLION**

[Wanted Poster in English] [304 KB][Wanted Poster in Serbian] [139 KB][Wanted Poster in Swedish] [161 KB][Wanted Poster in Turkish] [171 KB]

**ALIASES:**Maximillian Rivkin, Maximilan Rivkin, Milos Jankovic**NICKNAMES:** “Maximilan,” “Malmo,” “Teamsters,” “Malmö,” “Microsoft,” “Max”**DOB:**07/14/1983**POB:**Sweden**NATIONALITY:** Swedish**CITIZENSHIP:**Swedish**HEIGHT:**6’1″**WEIGHT:**Unknown**HAIR COLOR:**Brown**EYE COLOR:**Brown**SCARS/MARKS/TATTOOS:**Scar on left knee; scars on fingers of right hand; tattoo of three monkeys on his right arm.

In 2018, the FBI infiltrated an encrypted communications platform, known as ANOM, used by transnational criminals throughout the world.  Many criminal conversations were uncovered during the investigation, including those of Maximilian Rivkin, a Swedish-based criminal of Serbian origin.  From December 2020 through the spring of 2021, the FBI shared copies of Rivkin’s criminal conversations with the Swedish Police Authority, which implicated Rivkin in participating in a murder conspiracy, drug trafficking conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and kidnapping conspiracy.

On May 28, 2021, Rivkin was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of California and charged in an international conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise.  The Swedish Police Authority also have charges outstanding for Rivkin.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $5 MILLION, jointly with the Swedish Police Authority,** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Maximilian Rivkin.

If you have information, please contact U.S. investigators by email at SD_Rivkin_Reward@fbi.gov or Swedish investigators by email at *efterlyst@polisen.se*.  If you are located outside of the United States, you may also visit the nearest U.S. or Swedish Embassy or Consulate.  If in the United States, you can also contact the local FBI offices in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCrimeSwedenTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program Targets

Back to Top
§ 442.12 Provider agreement: General requirements. ( a ) *Certification and recertification.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a Medicaid agency may not execute a provider agreement with a facility for nursing facility services nor make Medicaid payments to a facility for those services unless the Secretary or the State survey agency has certified the facility under this part to provide those services. (See § 442.101 for certification by the Secretary or by the State survey agency).
( b ) *Exception.* The certification requirement of paragraph (a) of this section does not apply with respect to religious nonmedical institutions as defined in § 440.170(b) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conformance with certification condition.* An agreement must be in accordance with the certification provisions set by the Secretary or the survey agency under subpart C of this part for ICFs/IID or subpart E of part 488 of this chapter for NFs.
( d ) *Denial for good cause.* ( 1 ) If the Medicaid agency has adequate documentation showing good cause, it may refuse to execute an agreement, or may cancel an agreement, with a certified facility.
( 2 ) A provider agreement is not a valid agreement for purposes of this part even though certified by the State survey agency, if the facility fails to meet the civil rights requirements set forth in 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 90.
[45 FR 22936, Apr. 4, 1980, as amended at 56 FR 48865, Sept. 26, 1991; 59 FR 56235, Nov. 10, 1994; 64 FR 67052, Nov. 30, 1999]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Expanding Regional Economic Integration through I2U2’s Business-to-Business Cooperation

# 									Expanding Regional Economic Integration through I2U2’s Business-to-Business Cooperation							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 22, 2023

Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez participated in I2U2 (Israel, India, the UAE, and the United States) initiative’s inaugural business forum, hosted in Abu Dhabi by UAE Minister of State H.E. Ahmed bin Ali Al Sayegh on February 22, 2023. The forum convened senior government officials, including Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ronen Levi and the Economic Relations Secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs Dammu Ravi, with business leaders and other private-sector stakeholders to spearhead business-to-business cooperation. Under Secretary Fernandez also met with senior Emirati officials to discuss cooperation on climate and clean energy action, food security, and other shared economic priorities – notably ahead of the UAE hosting COP28 in November 2023.

During the business forum, I2U2 leadership discussed opportunities to advance multi-regional cooperation and investment opportunities to address some of the regions’ most pressing issues, including management of the energy crisis and food insecurity. Public and private-sector representatives gathered to strategize on how to best promote prosperity across the region. Our commitment to overcome collective challenges and deepen coordination with I2U2 continues to serve as a regional model to support investments and initiatives to improve sustainability and resilience in key sectors.

Through I2U2, the United States and partner countries continue to realize tangible outcomes from collaboration in areas of food and water security, energy, space, transportation, health, and technology – including support for clean technology and the decarbonization industry, as exemplified through India’s joining of the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM4C) initiative, which increases the partnership to 43 governments and more than 275 total partners who are working to collectively advance AIM4C’s mission.

Find details about India joining the AIM4C initiative, on the margins of the I2U2 Business Forum, can be found, here. Learn more about I2U2 in Under Secretary Fernandez’s remarks, here.

To stay updated, follow Under Secretary Fernandez on Twitter: @State_E, Facebook: @StateDeptE, and LinkedIn: @State-E.

For press inquiries, please contact: E_Communications@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsIndiaIsraelOffice of the SpokespersonUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentUnited Arab EmiratesUnited States

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10218 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. EYVONE MICHELLE GARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:02-CR-94-16
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eyvone Michelle Garrett appeals the district court’s denial of her motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce her prison sentence. Because Garrett was released from prison on July 9, 2010, her appeal is DISMISSED as moot. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 5, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 08-10218 Document: 00511529514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2011No. 08-10218 I. On June 26, 2003, Garrett pleaded guilty to various drug-related charges. In October, she was sentenced to 2 1 0 m o nths of imprisonment. In February 2007, on motion from the government, her sentence was reduced to 100 months. I n February 2008, Garrett moved to have her sentence further reduced in the light of relevant changes to the sentencing guidelines. Her motion was denied in March, and she filed a timely notice of appeal. Garrett was released from prison on July 9, 2010. II. The threshold question is whether Garrett’s appeal is moot. A panel of this court, in a recent unpublished decision, has spoken directly to this precise issue. See United States v. Boston , 2011 WL 1057563 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2011). Boston specifically held that we cannot consider a motion to reduce a sentence when the movant has been released from prison. Id. at *2. We agree, although

we further note that our decision does n o t s trip Garrett of her right to file “a motion . . . regarding supervised release.” See id. III. Garrett’s appeal is moot and is therefore DISMISSED.

2 Case: 08-10218 Document: 00511529514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2011
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_______________________

NO. 09-18-00213-CV

_______________________

WESLEY GLENN GAMMONS, Appellant

V.

DIANE WAUGH GAMMONS ON BEHALF OF K.D.G., Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CV1712761

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Wesley Glenn Gammons, Appellant, filed a notice of appeal with the trial 

court on May 30, 2018. Despite written notices from this Court and an opportunity 

to cure, Appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the filing fee for the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1. Additionally, neither the clerk’s record nor the 

reporter’s record have been filed, and the clerk and court reporter responsible for 

preparing the record in this appeal informed the Court that Appellant did not make 

arrangements to pay for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3. On September 7, 2018, 
2

we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless the filing fee was 

paid and Appellant made arrangements for filing the record. Appellant did not 

respond to the Court’s notices.

There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for 

the appeal, and there being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the 

appellate record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

37.3(b), 42.3.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on October 24, 2018

Opinion Delivered October 25, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On Tenth Anniversary of Joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), the United States Marks a Sustained Commitment to Foreign Assistance Data Transparency

# 									On Tenth Anniversary of Joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), the United States Marks a Sustained Commitment to Foreign Assistance Data Transparency							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 30, 2021

Today, the United States celebrates the tenth anniversary of becoming a signatory to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), marking a sustained, whole-of-government commitment to increasing the transparency of U.S. foreign assistance data. Additionally, as part of this broader commitment, the U.S. government launched a new platform to advance the transparency, accessibility, and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance data, available at ForeignAssistance.gov.

By publishing U.S. foreign assistance data that is accurate and timely, ForeignAssistance.gov presents a multi-dimensional picture of the U.S. foreign assistance lifecycle in a highly visual, interactive website. ForeignAssistance.gov publishes data as reported by more than 20 U.S. government agencies that manage foreign assistance programs. In doing so, the website fulfills aid transparency standards and reporting requirements, including the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016 (FATAA), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 12-01. ForeignAssistance.gov is a product of the Foreign Assistance Data and Reporting Team (FA-DART), a joint initiative by the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); it replaces two legacy websites, previously managed under separate mandates.

IATI is a global, voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative that includes donors, partner countries, civil society organizations, and private enterprises that aims to make information about foreign aid spending easier to access, use, and understand. At the center of IATI is the IATI Standard, a framework for publishing data on development activities. The United States is proud to have been an active member of the IATI community for the past decade and remains committed to continuing to improve foreign assistance data transparency to increase learning, improve outcomes, better use resources, and remain accountable to the American public.

 

Tags

Division for International Finance and DevelopmentForeign AssistanceOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of Foreign AssistanceU.S. Agency for International Development

Back to Top
§ 456.135 Continued stay review process. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) Review of continued stay cases is conducted by— ( 1 ) The UR committee;
( 2 ) A subgroup of the UR committee; or
( 3 ) A designee of the UR committee;
( b ) The committee, subgroup or designee reviews a beneficiary's continued stay on or before the expiration of each assigned continued stay review date;
( c ) For each continued stay of a beneficiary in the hospital, the committee, subgroup or designee reviews and evaluates the documentation described under § 456.111 against the criteria developed under § 456.132 and applies close professional scrutiny to cases selected under § 456.129(b);
( d ) If the committee, subgroup, or designee finds that a beneficiary's continued stay in the hospital is needed, the committee assigns a new continued stay review date in accordance with § 456.133;
( e ) If the committee, subgroup, or designee finds that a continued stay case does not meet the criteria, the committee or a subgroup that includes at least one physician reviews the case to decide the need for continued stay;
( f ) If the committee or subgroup making the review under paragraph (e) of this section finds that a continued stay is not needed, it notifies the beneficiary's attending physician and gives him an opportunity to present his reviews before it makes a final decision on the need for the continued stay;
( g ) If the attending physician does not present additional information or clarification of the need for the continued stay, the decision of the committee or subgroup is final; and
( h ) If the attending physician presents additional information or clarification, at least two physician members of the committee review the need for the continued stay. If they find that the beneficiary no longer needs inpatient hospital services, their decision is final.
#### E. E. WILEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.*

No. 7565.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 25, 1935.

Emmett Doherty, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., and Ernest R. Utley, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.

*

Writ of certiorari denied 55 S. Ct. 657, 79 L. Ed. —.

PER CURIAM.

After oral argument, and upon consideration of briefs filed, it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court in this cause be, and hereby is, affirmed upon the authority of Meadows v. U. S., 11 F.(2d) 718; Prussian v. U. S., 282 U. S. 675, 51 S. Ct. 223, 75 L. Ed. 610, and Mosheik v. U. S., 63 F.(2d) 533.
###### 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.

#### § 457.602 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart apply to the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealths and Territories.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a)OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fuad Ahmad, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this
Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Quantum Corporation; and

2) Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report.

Date: July 27, 2016/s/ FUAD AHMADFuad AhmadChief Financial
  Officer(Principal Financial
      Officer)


---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND,INC., d/b/a DOCKET NO. 16

- 11

- 01

FLIGHTLINE FIRST,

Complainant

vs.

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION AND

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE MANAGEMENT

OF THE LAKEFRONT AIRPORT;

NON

- FLOOD PROTECTION ASSET

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, AS

SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and ORLEANS

PARISH LEVEE DISTRI CT, DIVISION

OF NON

- FLOOD ASSETS

Respondents.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER

COMES NOW the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (hereafter

“DOTD”) , respondent in the above captioned matter who makes the following moti on;

1.

DOTD requests additional time to respond to the complaint.

2.

The issues presented in the complaint are complex and DOTD needs additional time to

research the facts and applicable law as well as additional time to explore retention of outside

coun sel.3.

Counsel for DOTD has contacted counsel for the Complainant and there is no objection

to this request for an extension of time within which to answer.

4.

This request is made in good faith and is not an attempt to unnecessarily delay these

procee dings.

5.

DOTD requests an additional 45 days to file responsive pleadings in this matter.

WHEREFORE, DOTD prays that this motion be granted allowing them an additional 45

days to file responsive pleadings in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Brandon Brown

___________________________________ Brandon Brown , La. Bar # 25593

Counsel for Louisiana Department of

Transportation and Development

1201 Capital Access Road

Baton Rouge, LA 7080 4

225

- 242

- 46 56

CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing motion has been served upon:

Alan Armstrong, counsel for complainant via electronic mail at

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com this 15 th day of March, 2011.

s / Brandon Brown

____________________________________________ Brandon Brown, counsel for DOTD
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.

§ 457.1130 Program specific review process: Matters subject to review. ( a ) *Eligibility or enrollment matter.* A State must ensure that an applicant or enrollee has an opportunity for review, consistent with §§ 457.1140 and 457.1150, of a— ( 1 ) Denial of eligibility;
( 2 ) Failure to make a timely determination of eligibility; and
( 3 ) Suspension or termination of enrollment, including disenrollment for failure to pay cost sharing.
( b ) *Health services matter.* A State must ensure that an enrollee has an opportunity for external review of a— ( 1 ) Delay, denial, reduction, suspension, or termination of health services, in whole or in part, including a determination about the type or level of services; and
( 2 ) Failure to approve, furnish, or provide payment for health services in a timely manner.
( c ) *Exception.* A State is not required to provide an opportunity for review of a matter described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section if the sole basis for the decision is a provision in the State plan or in Federal or State law requiring an automatic change in eligibility, enrollment, or a change in coverage under the health benefits package that affects all applicants or enrollees or a group of applicants or enrollees without regard to their individual circumstances.
Contacts. Withwhom outside the FAAhasthis proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business .4..ircraft Association E1iCotti 

# 4h~JlJi 

# - Regional Airline Association Dave Loiterer 

### "fk4.}tfj 

# - Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hadunan 

# (/ /ztj

# hi
- ATA Craig Fabian 

# "ilu)D~ 

# -