alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           5,057
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,199
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          20,256
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,538
<LOANS>                                         58,152
<ALLOWANCE>                                        982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,819
<DEPOSITS>                                      80,253
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,203
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,596
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,662
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  92,819
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,764
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,324
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   368
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,456
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,310
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,146
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (155)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (35)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,545
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,545
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.30
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        99
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   756
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       27
<RECOVERIES>                                       408
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  982
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               982
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            473


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-2103 

_____________________________ 

FCCI COMMERCIAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Appellant, 

v. 

PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a 

Michigan Corporation, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Kevin Blazs, Judge. 

March 18, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

The Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a 

final, appealable order as it fails to complete the judicial labor in 

the case. Accordingly, Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is 

granted and the appeal is dismissed. 

Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees based on section 627.428, 

Florida Statutes, is provisionally granted. In the event Appellee 

prevails before the trial court, the trial court shall determine 

Appellee’s entitlement to fees for this appeal pursuant to section 

627.428. If the trial court finds Appellee is entitled to fees, the 
2 

trial court shall assess fees against Appellant pursuant to section 

627.428. 

In light of the dismissal, all other pending motions are denied 

as moot. 

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 

Robert M. Darroch, Brett A. Smith and Cathi M. CarsonFreymann of Goodman McGuffey LLP, Sarasota, for Appellant. 

Mark A. Boyle and Amanda K. Anderson of Boyle & Leonard, P.A., 

Fort Myers, for Appellee.
#### David Leroy COULTER v. STATE.

8 Div. 172.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 31, 1981.

Murray W. Beasley and Bryce U. Graham, Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. ,and Elizabeth Ann Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

Reversed and remanded on the authority of *Beck v. State,*396 So.2d 645 (Ala. 1981).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
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.

§ 457.495 State assurance of access to care and procedures to assure quality and appropriateness of care. A State plan must include a description of the methods that a State uses for assuring the quality and appropriateness of care provided under the plan, including how the State will assure: ( a ) Access to well-baby care, well-child care, well-adolescent care and childhood and adolescent immunizations.
( b ) Access to covered services, including emergency services as defined at § 457.10.
( c ) Appropriate and timely procedures to monitor and treat enrollees with chronic, complex, or serious medical conditions, including access to an adequate number of visits to specialists experienced in treating the specific medical condition and access to out-of-network providers when the network is not adequate for the enrollee's medical condition.
( d ) That decisions related to the prior authorization of health services are completed as follows: ( 1 ) *Before January 1, 2026.* ( i ) In accordance with the medical needs of the patient, within 14 days after receipt of a request for services. A possible extension of up to 14 days may be permitted if the enrollee requests the extension or if the physician or health plan determines that additional information is needed; or
( ii ) In accordance with existing State law regarding prior authorization of health services.
( 2 ) *On or after January 1, 2026.* ( i ) In accordance with the medical needs of the enrollee, but no later than 7 calendar days after receiving the request for a standard determination and by no later than 72 hours after receiving the request for an expedited determination. A possible extension of up to 14 days may be permitted if the enrollee requests the extension or if the physician or health plan determines the additional information is needed; or
( ii ) In accordance with existing State law regarding prior authorization of health services.
( 3 ) *Enrollee notification.* Provide the enrollee with— ( i ) Notice of the State's prior authorization decision; and
( ii ) Information on the enrollee's right to a review process, in accordance with § 457.1180.
( e ) Access to and delivery of services in a culturally competent manner to all beneficiaries, as described in 42 CFR 440.262.
[66 FR 2678, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 33824, June 25, 2001; 89 FR 8982, Feb. 4, 2024; 89 FR 37692, May 6, 2024]
#### § 441.610 State plan requirements.

A state plan must provide that the Medicaid agency meets the requirements of this part.
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICIERPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Craig A. McCollam, Chief FinancialOfficer 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/ Craig A. McCollam   Name: Craig A. McCollam  Title: Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 29, 2007
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the Conviction and Sentencing of Vietnamese NGO Leader Hoang Thi Minh Hong

# 									On the Conviction and Sentencing of Vietnamese NGO Leader Hoang Thi Minh Hong							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

September 28, 2023

The United States is deeply concerned by the conviction and sentencing of prominent environmental activist and NGO leader Hoang Thi Minh Hong to three years’ imprisonment.

We reiterate our call on Vietnam to release all those unjustly detained and to respect the right to freedoms of expression and association for all persons in Vietnam.  We call on the Vietnamese government to ensure its tax law is enforced in a transparent, impartial manner that ensures nongovernmental organizations can operate without fear of undue targeting or prosecution.  We further urge Vietnam to ensure its actions are consistent with the human rights provisions of Vietnam’s constitution and its international commitments, including to consult with non-government stakeholders as part of the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP).

NGO leaders like Hoang Thi Minh Hong play a vital role in tackling global challenges, proposing sustainable solutions in the global fight against the climate crisis, and combating wildlife and timber trafficking.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsClimate ChangeEnvironmentHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonVietnamWildlife Trafficking

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2093

WILLIAM TRACY OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARREN MASSENBURG,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (MISC-93-187-5)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Tracy Owens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on February 7, 1994; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on May 5, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 441.253 Sterilization of a mentally competent individual aged 21 or older. FFP is available in expenditures for the sterilization of an individual only if— ( a ) The individual is at least 21 years old at the time consent is obtained;
( b ) The individual is not a mentally incompetent individual;
( c ) The individual has voluntarily given informed consent in accordance with all the requirements prescribed in §§ 441.257 and 441.258; and
( d ) At least 30 days, but not more than 180 days, have passed between the date of informed consent and the date of the sterilization, except in the case of premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery. An individual may consent to be sterilized at the time of a premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery, if at least 72 hours have passed since he or she gave informed consent for the sterilization. In the case of premature delivery, the informed consent must have been given at least 30 days before the expected date of delivery.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,106,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,106,114
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,106,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,060,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,106,114
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,829
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1428

DEREK JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL 

LANE JOINT VENTURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/MONTGOMERY 

COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 

AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se. John 

Benjamin Raftery, DECKELBAUM, OGENS & RAFTERY, CHARTERED, 

Bethesda, Maryland; Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Appellants Derek Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman seek to 

appeal the district court’s order entered on April 8, 2009. The 

order granted various Defendants’ motions to stay discovery and 

motions for a more definite statement, and denied Plaintiffs’ 

motion to order Defendants to file all documents and to refile 

and rescan documents. This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Appellants seek to appeal is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Chris Thompson 

Birdseyepix and VT 

268 Canal Rd. 

Waterloo, SC 29384 

Dear Mr. Thompson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 21, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1855), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
- NPT Home
- NPT 50th Anniversary
- Tenth NPT Review Conference
- 2023 NPT Preparatory Committee

HomeKey Topics – Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation...Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

# Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),has made the world safer and more prosperous for over fifty years. The NPT, with its three pillars of nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy,is the cornerstone of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The Treatyfirst entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995.Today, the NPT has become nearly universal, with 191 States Parties. Over the years, the NPT has helped prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons, provided the confidence necessary tofacilitate cooperation onthe peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and fostered a security environment that has enabled dramatic reductions in nuclear stockpiles and that is essential for future progress on nuclear disarmament.

The United States is committed to upholding and strengthening the NPT while restoring U.S. leadership on arms control and nonproliferation.  Effective arms control enhances stability, transparency, and predictability while reducing the possibility of costly, dangerous arms races.  Working closely with our partners and allies around the world, the United States will address 21st century challenges while preserving and strengthening the Treaty for future generations.

#### The NPT Review Process

The Treaty allows for the Parties to gather every five years for the NPT Review Conference (RevCon) to review its operation. NPT Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings are held during each of the three years preceding a RevCon.
        - Tenth NPT Review Conference
        - 2023 NPT Preparatory Committee

## 							Discover More						

### 											NPT Signing Documents										

          -  																Site of the NPT Signing, June 5, 1968																 
          -  																NPT Signature, June 21, 1968																 
          -  																NPT Signature, June 27, 1968																 
          -  																Signing of the NPT Treaty, July 1, 1968																 

### 											ACDA History of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee										

          -  																The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency During the Johnson Administration—Volume II: Policy and Negotiations: The ENDC 1964-1967																 
          -  																The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency During the Johnson Administration—Volume II: Policy and Negotiations: The ENDC 1967-1968																 
          -  																The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency During the Johnson Administration—Volume II: 22nd General Assembly																 

### 											The History of the NPT										

          -  																NPT Historical Photos																															 
          -  																Signing of the NPT																 
          -  																NPT 50th Anniversary																															 

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAHMAEL SAL HOLT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 87 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December , 2019, the Application for Extraordinary

Relief Pursuant to King’s Bench Jurisdiction is DENIED.
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivsion of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Norbert J. STEIN, Respondent.

No. 46055.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 14, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 296 So.2d 643.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
HomeResources for Programs and Grants...Logic Models

# 									Logic Models							

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

							DRL M&E Mini Webinar Series: Logic Models						

Back to Top
HomeDSS Press Releases...Kissimmee Woman Sentenced To Prison For Passport Fraud, Identity Theft, And Food Stamp Fraud

# 									Kissimmee Woman Sentenced To Prison For Passport Fraud, Identity Theft, And Food Stamp Fraud							

Department of Justice Release

February 2, 2024

For Immediate Release – February 2, 2024

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyDSS ReleasesFloridaFood SecurityFraudUnited States

Back to Top