alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.160 Basis and scope of the Medicare Advantage Quality Rating System. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart is based on sections 1851(d), 1852(e), 1853(o) and 1854(b)(3)(iii), (v), and (vi) of the Act and the general authority under section 1856(b) of the Act requiring the establishment of standards consistent with and to carry out Part C.
( b ) *Purpose.* Ratings calculated and assigned under this subpart will be used by CMS for the following purposes: ( 1 ) To provide comparative information on plan quality and performance to beneficiaries for their use in making knowledgeable enrollment and coverage decisions in the Medicare program.
( 2 ) To provide quality ratings on a 5-star rating system to be used in determining quality bonus payment (QBP) status and in determining rebate retention allowances.
( 3 ) To provide a means to evaluate and oversee overall and specific compliance with certain regulatory and contract requirements by MA plans, where appropriate and possible to use data of the type described in § 422.162(c).
( c ) *Applicability.* Except for § 422.162(b)(3), the regulations in this subpart will be applicable beginning with the 2019 measurement period and the associated 2021 Star Ratings that are released prior to the annual coordinated election period for the 2021 contract year and used to assign QBP ratings for the 2022 payment year.
[83 FR 16725, Apr. 16, 2018]
§ 418.102 Condition of participation: Medical director. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 64272 , Aug. 6, 2024.
The hospice must designate a physician to serve as medical director. The medical director must be a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is an employee, or is under contract with the hospice. When the medical director is not available, a physician designated by the hospice assumes the same responsibilities and obligations as the medical director. ( a ) *Standard: Medical director contract.* ( 1 ) A hospice may contract with either of the following— ( i ) A self-employed physician; or
( ii ) A physician employed by a professional entity or physicians group. When contracting for medical director services, the contract must specify the physician who assumes the medical director responsibilities and obligations.
( b ) *Standard: Initial certification of terminal illness.* The medical director or physician designee reviews the clinical information for each hospice patient and provides written certification that it is anticipated that the patient's life expectancy is 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The physician must consider the following when making this determination: ( 1 ) The primary terminal condition;
( 2 ) Related diagnosis(es), if any;
( 3 ) Current subjective and objective medical findings;
( 4 ) Current medication and treatment orders; and
( 5 ) Information about the medical management of any of the patient's conditions unrelated to the terminal illness.
( c ) *Standard: Recertification of the termina terminal illness.* Before the recertification period for each patient, as described in § 418.21(a), the medical director or physician designee must review the patient's clinical information.
( d ) *Standard: Medical director responsibility.* The medical director or physician designee has responsibility for the medical component of the hospice's patient care program.
### Pulse-transient behavior of brine-saturated sandstones

By: George V. Keller

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1083D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                D of                                                                              Experimental and theoretical geophysics                                                                    
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### The City of Lima *v.*The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

*Public utilities commission*— Order *not unjust and unreasonable*— *Steam heat rates.*

(No. 16600

Decided December 21, 1920.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. H. E. Garling,*city solicitor; *Messrs. Mackenzie & Weadock*and *Mr. Paul T. Landis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John G. Price,*attorney general; *Mr. E. E. Corn*and *Messrs. Cable &■ Cable,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the order of the said Public Utilities Commission *538of Ohio be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; for the reason that the question presented to the court is whether the order of the Commission was unjust and unreasonable and the solution of this question depended on the facts as disclosed by the record. The commission had the witnesses and the entire situation before them and an examination of the record does not disclose in the judgment of the court such a state of facts as would warrant the reversal of the order by the commission.

*Order affirmed.*

Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Hough and Robinson, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7270

TERRON GERHARD DIZZLEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SERGEANT PATE, female; Ms. GREEN, CBU Director; OFFICER JOHN K. BROWN, yard officer; OFFICER THORN, male; Ms. BROWN, Classification; OFFICER CLEVELAND, male; OFFICER MARTIN, male, Ms. JACKSON, classification; OFFICER NETHERTAN; OFFICER PARISH; OFFICER SMITH; WARDEN INABINET; REGIONAL DIRECTOR DAVIS; REGINALD L. WESTON; MIRACLE D. DAVENPORT; BRITTANY M. LIVINGSON , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Joseph Dawson , III, District Judge. ( 8:19

- cv - 02665

- JD )

Submitted : March 2 9 , 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terron Gerhard Dizzley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Dizzley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record a nd find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Additionally, we deny Dizzley’s “Motion For Leave To Amend, Pursuant To Newly

- Discovered Evidence and Events,” and his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order recusing the magistrate judge and disqualifying opposing counsel. See In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 423.771 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart is based on section 1860D-14 of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the requirements and limitations for payments by and on behalf of low-income Medicare beneficiaries who enroll in a Part D plan.
**Exhibit 21.1**SUBSIDIARIES OF DIONEX CORPORATION     The following table sets forth the names of the subsidiaries of Dionex Corporation, the stateor other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names under whichsubsidiaries do business as of June 30, 2007.       **State or other**    **Jurisdiction of** **Name under which**  **incorporation or** **subsidiary does****Name of Subsidiary** **organization** **business**Dionex (U.K.) Limited England Dionex (U.K.) Ltd.     Dionex GmbH Federal Republic of Germany Dionex GmbH     Dionex S.r.l. Italy Dionex S.r.l.     Dionex S.A. France Dionex S.A.     Dionex(Europe)Management AG Switzerland Dionex European Management     Dionex Export Corporation U.S. Virgin Islands Dionex Export Corporation     Dionex Canada Ltd. /Ltee. Canada Dionex Canada Ltd./Ltee     Dionex Benelux B.V. The Netherlands Dionex Benelux B.V.     Nippon Dionex K.K. Japan Nippon Dionex K.K.     Dionex (Switzerland) AG Switzerland Dionex(Switzerland) AG     Dionex Austria GmbH Austria Dionex Austria GmbH     Dionex Softron GmbH Germany Dionex Softron GmbH     Dionex Holding GmbH Germany Dionex Holding GmbH     Dionex Denmark A/S Denmark Dionex Denmark A/S     Dionex China Ltd. China Dionex China Ltd.     Dionex Korea Ltd. Korea Dionex Korea Ltd.     Dionex Pty Ltd. (AU) Australia Dionex Pty Ltd.     Dionex Pty Ltd. (NZ) New Zealand Dionex Pty Ltd.     Dionex (India) Pvt. Ltd. India Dionex (India) Pvt. Ltd.     Dionex Brazil Ltda Brazil Dionex      Brazil      Instrumentos Cientificos Ltda     Dionex Taiwan Ltd. Taiwan Dionex Taiwan Ltd.
To whom it may concern,

I, David E. Smith, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, be exempt from the Federal Aviation Regulations as specified and seek exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA).

This exemption request will permit David E. Smith, as the owner and operator of Unmanned Aircraft System's (UAS) for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial video and photography of Real Estate, perform home and or business exterior inspections, and general photography.

I as the sole operator of the named UAS vehicles, consisting of a DJI Inspire 1 UAS, and a DJI Vision+ UAS, and their use will be for commercial photography and video, namely, Real Estate Photography, home and or business exterior inspections, general photography in which prints may be sold, and agricultural assessments on local farms as needed.

I am an experienced pilot with the above mentioned aircraft and have over 2 decades of radio control aircraft experience. The above mentioned aircraft are GPS assisted for location based information, and include a “Return to Home” safety feature in case of signal loss. All pre-flight and post-flight checks, and system/vehicle maintenance will be performed by myself. All flights will be L.O.S. And will have a spotter as needed. All flights will maintain less than 400' A.G.L. The Inspire 1 craft weighs 6.5 pounds, the Vision+ weighs 3 pounds. Both are battery operated, which are quieter as not to disrupt surrounding neighbors, businesses, etc.... The Inspire 1 also has a safety feature in the software which will not allow it to spool up the motors if within a certain distance of Class A/B/C, etc.... airports.

The aircraft would be operated in the York, Adams, Dauphin county areas in Pa. They may also be used in the northern Md. Counties as well.

The use of these aircraft are financially viable as the cost to the consumer is much less than hiring a full size aircraft and pilot. The aircraft are also safer and can access areas a full size aircraft can't. For home inspections, they also allow a total roof inspection without the need of ladders and harnesses which also creates a safer and less costly option to the client.

Sincerely, David E. Smith 470 Roman Court York, Pa. 17404 717-586-7109 SEMPERFI8387@COMCAST.NET
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 									Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 5, 2023

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD) will hold an in-person public meeting on “The Role of Public Diplomacy in Democracy Promotion” with online (Zoom) access on Thursday, April 13, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. PT (2:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. ET). During the meeting, a distinguished panel of experts, including Larry Diamond, Michael McFaul, and Kathryn Stoner, will discuss how U.S. government public diplomacy programs can most effectively promote and defend democratic values in an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal global context.

This meeting is open to the public, including the media and members and staff of governmental and non-governmental organizations. The event will take place at the Philippines Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, Central, C330, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford University. Please register for the event.

Congress created the bipartisan ACPD in 1948 to appraise U.S. government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.  The Commission conducts research that provides honest assessments of public diplomacy efforts, and disseminates findings through reports, white papers, and other publications.  It also holds public symposia that generate informed discussions on public diplomacy issues.  The Commission reports to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

For more information on the ACPD, its congressionally mandated annual reports, or the upcoming public meeting, please visit the ACPD website.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Additional Detail on South Coast Ozone SIP Transportation Conformity Budget Adjustments



### NOx 20112014201720202023 Carl Moyer Program 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 AB1493 GHG Standards 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 Smog Check Improvements -- 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.2 Truck Model Adjustment 38.9 19.7 16.7 13.9 30.7 Total 38.9 22.3 18.8 15.6 31.9


### ROG 20112014201720202023 Carl Moyer Program 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 AB1493 GHG Standards 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 Total 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.5 Smog Check Improvements

-- 4.9 4.4 3.8 2.8 Smog Check Improvements & Reformulated Gasoline -- 9.3 8.1 6.8 5.3 Truck Model Adjustment 4.5 4.9 3.5 1.7 0.9 Total 4.5 14.2 11.5 8.5 6.2 Adjustments for Adopted State and Local On-road Measures State Strategy - On-road Reductions

Adjustments for Adopted State and Local On-road Measures State Strategy - On-road Reductions

8/11/2011 Draft
§ 485.604 Personnel qualifications. Staff that furnish services in a CAH must meet the applicable requirements of this section. ( a ) *Clinical nurse specialist.* A clinical nurse specialist must be a person who— ( 1 ) Is a registered nurse and is licensed to practice nursing in the State in which the clinical nurse specialist services are performed in accordance with State nurse licensing laws and regulations; and
( 2 ) Holds a master's or doctoral level degree in a defined clinical area of nursing from an accredited educational institution.
( b ) *Nurse practitioner.* A nurse practitioner must be a registered professional nurse who is currently licensed to practice in the State, who meets the State's requirements governing the qualification of nurse practitioners, and who meets one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Is currently certified as a primary care nurse practitioner by the American Nurses' Association or by the National Board of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners and Associates.
( 2 ) Has successfully completed a 1 academic year program that— ( i ) Prepares registered nurses to perform an expanded role in the delivery of primary care;
( ii ) Includes at least 4 months (in the aggregate) of classroom instruction and a component of supervised clinical practice; and
( iii ) Awards a degree, diploma, or certificate to persons who successfully complete the program.
( 3 ) Has successfully completed a formal educational program (for preparing registered nurses to perform an expanded role in the delivery of primary care) that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and has been performing an expanded role in the delivery of primary care for a total of 12 months during the 18-month period immediately preceding June 25, 1993.
( c ) *Physician assistant.* A physician assistant must be a person who meets the applicable State requirements governing the qualifications for assistants to primary care physicians, and who meets at least one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Is currently certified by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants to assist primary care physicians.
( 2 ) Has satisfactorily completed a program for preparing physician assistants that— ( i ) Was at least one academic year in length;
( ii ) Consisted of supervised clinical practice and at least 4 months (in the aggregate) of classroom instruction directed toward preparing students to deliver health care; and
( iii ) Was accredited by the American Medical Association's Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation.
( 3 ) Has satisfactorily completed a formal educational program (for preparing physician assistants) that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section and has been assisting primary care physicians for a total of 12 months during the 18-month period immediately preceding June 25, 1993.
[58 FR 30671, May 26, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997; 77 FR 29076, May 16, 2012]
#### Jessie CLINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 24, 1981.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert C. Fallon, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of burglary of a structure and one count of theft of a motor vehicle. The plea resulted from negotiations wherein it was agreed that appellant would receive no more than five year concurrent sentences on both counts.

After finding that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, the trial court accepted the plea, adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to a five year term, one year of which was to be served in the county jail, and the remaining four years on probation. After learning that appellant would not accept the probation, appellant came before the trial court, who carefully inquired of appellant if it were true that appellant wished to have the sentence withdrawn. Appellant clearly chose to have his sentence withdrawn and a new sentence imposed, so the trial court honored his request, withdrew the original sentence and imposed a five year split sentence alternative, two and a half years to be served in prison and the remaining two and a half years on probation, less credit for time served.

Appellant contends: (1) that the trial court could not withdraw his sentence and then sentence him to more time in prison; (2) that the sentence was a general sentence on both counts and is thus improper; (3) that the split sentence violates the principles of *Villery v. The Florida Parole and Probation Commission,*396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1980).

On the first point, appellant relies on cases such as *Troupe v. Rowe,*283 So.2d 857 (Fla.1973); *Andrews*v. *State,*357 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and *Katz v. State,*335 So.2d 608 (Fla.2d DCA 1976) for the proposition that the court cannot resentence a defendant to a longer term of incarceration after he has begun to serve his sentence, without violating his double jeopardy rights. However, in all the cited cases, the alteration in the sentence was involuntary, with the defendant in each case objecting to *1116any change. Here, the defendant requested the court to withdraw the sentence and impose a new one, so the principle of the cited cases does not apply.

Appellant is correct in his assertion that the general sentence on both counts is improper. *Dorfman v. State,*351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977); *Price v. State,*393 So.2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

The Supreme Court has revised the opinion in *Viilery,*(April 23, 1981) [1981 FLW 313] and has made it clear that the split sentence alternative provided for in section 948.01(4), Florida Statutes, prohibits incarceration for a term which equals or exceeds one year, so the last sentence imposed here must be revisited by the trial court.

The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing.

Sentence VACATED, case REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23(a)


CONSENT OF COUNSEL TO THE COMPANY

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the statements
made as to matters of law and legal conclusions contained in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Texas Utilities Company and Texas Utilities Electric
Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, under Part I, Item
1--Business--US Electric Segment--Regulation and Rates and --US Gas
Segment--Regulation and Rates and Environmental Matters--US Segments, in
Texas Utilities Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-27989
and 333-68663).



                              WORSHAM, FORSYTHE
                                   & WOOLDRIDGE, L.L.P.


                              By:       \s\ Timothy A. Mack
                                             A Partner



March 22, 1999
Dallas, Texas
Additional Detail on South Coast Ozone SIP Transportation Conformity Budget Adjustments

NOx 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Carl Moyer Program 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0

AB1493 GHG Standards 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Total 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.1

Smog Check Improvements -- 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.2

Truck Model Adjustment 38.9 19.7 16.7 13.9 30.7

Total 38.9 22.3 18.8 15.6 31.9

ROG 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Carl Moyer Program 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

AB1493 GHG Standards 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5

Total 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.5

Smog Check Improvements

-- 4.9 4.4 3.8 2.8 Smog Check Improvements

& Reformulated Gasoline -- 9.3 8.1 6.8 5.3

Truck Model Adjustment 4.5 4.9 3.5 1.7 0.9

Total 4.5 14.2 11.5 8.5 6.2

Adjustments for Adopted State 

and Local On-road Measures 

State Strategy - On-road Reductions

Adjustments for Adopted State 

and Local On-road Measures 

State Strategy - On-road Reductions

8/11/2011

Draft