alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41129.

#### PATTERSON v. THE STATE.

Decided January 20, 1965.

*28
      *C. Winfred Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor General, Frank Strickland, Jr.,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The sole special ground of the amended motion for new trial not abandoned by the defendant assigns error on the failure of the trial court to charge specifically “that intent to steal is an essential element of the crime of larceny from the house.”

The trial court charged, with reference to larceny and in connection with the charge on burglary: “Now, if you find that the property described in the indictment was taken from its lawful owner or the person in custody of the same, but that it was taken by the defendant not with the intent to steal, but under a genuine and bona fide claim of right, you could not find that larceny occurred. There can be no larceny without the intent to steal and there can be no such intent where the taking is under a fair, honest bona fide claim of right. However, if you should find that the defendant found the goods alleged to have been stolen, took them and appropriated them to his own use, with intent to steal the same, with knowledge that the goods belonged to someone else and without making reasonable inquiry from the owner or person in custody of the goods, then you would be authorized to find that a larceny occurred. Whether any property was taken and whether it was taken with the intent to steal and without the consent of the owner or person in custody of the same are questions for you to decide under all the facts and circumstances of the case,” and in connection with the charge on larceny from the house instructed the jury that the instructions with reference to larceny “which *29involves the taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another with the intent to steal the same” were also applicable to the charge on larceny from the house.

The jury was properly instructed to determine the question of the defendant’s intent, and the charge given met the requirement set forth in *Glaze v. State, 2*Ga. App. 704 (3) (58 SE 1126), relied upon by the defendant and there was no failure to charge on such issue as was the case in *McKuhen v. State,*102 Ga. App. 75 (1) (115 SE2d 625). The sole special ground of the motion for new trial not abandoned shows no reversible error.

The evidence showed that the defendant was found in possession of the stolen riñe within a few hours of the time it was allegedly stolen and the question of whether such possession was satisfactorily explained was a question for the jury. See *Blackwell v. State,*99 Ga. App. 579 (109 SE2d 62). The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
§ 456.433 Initial continued stay review date. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) When a beneficiary is admitted to the ICF under admission review requirements of this subpart, the group performing UR assigns a specified date by which the need for his continued stay will be reviewed;
( b ) The group performing UR bases its assignment of the initial continued stay review date on the methods and criteria required to be described under § 456.435(a);
( c ) The initial continued stay review date is— ( 1 ) Not later than 6 months after admission; or
( 2 ) Earlier than 6 months after admission, if indicated at the time of admission; and
( d ) The group performing UR insures that the initial continued stay review date is recorded in the beneficiary's record.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NEXTPOINT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT 

PACKARD ENTERPRISE, HP INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-2312

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:15-cv-08550, Senior 

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MATTHEW TOPIC, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, argued 

for plaintiff-appellant. 

BARRY KENNETH SHELTON, Shelton IP Law, PC, Austin, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented 

by BRIAN CHRISTOPHER NASH, DAVID NICHOLAS PATARIU, 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, TX.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 14, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                      [LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference of our report dated January 19, 1996 included in this Form 10-K, into
High Point Financial Corp.'s previously filed Registration Statement No. 2-97635
on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-12243 on Form S-2, Registration
Statement No. 33-18227 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-18226 on Form
S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-22288 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No.
33-37621 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-76296 on Form S-2.


                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                            Arthur Andersen LLP


Roseland, New Jersey
March 28, 1996
HomeSection I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis...Long Description for the FY 2021 FMFIA Annual Assurance Process Diagram

# 									Long Description for the FY 2021 FMFIA Annual Assurance Process Diagram							

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services

November 15, 2021

Diagram illustrating the FMFIA Annual Assurance process:
        - Based on information gathered from knowledge of day-to-day operations; management program reviews; and OIG, GAO, and SIGAR audits; risk assessments; and other management-initiated evaluations, individual Statements of Assurance are provided by Ambassadors assigned overseas and from Assistant Secretaries in Washington, D.C.
        - In addition, to fulfill the requirements of OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A, the Senior Assessment Team makes an assessment of the adequacy of controls over reporting as of September 30.
        - The Management Control Steering Committee analyzes program issues reported within the Statements of Assurance, considers the Senior Assessment Team recommendation on reporting issues, and then votes on the severity of the issues and what kind of Statement of Assurance to recommend to the Secretary to sign.
        - Based on the Management Control Steering Committee’s recommendations, the Secretary of State issues the Department’s Annual Statement of Assurance.

(Back to Report)

Back to Top
§ 435.172 Continuous eligibility for hospitalized children. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements section 1902(e)(7) of the Act.
( b ) *Requirement.* The agency must provide Medicaid to an individual eligible and enrolled under § 435.118 until the end of an inpatient stay for which inpatient services are furnished, if the individual: ( 1 ) Was receiving inpatient services covered by Medicaid on the date the individual is no longer eligible under § 435.118 based on the child's age; and
( 2 ) Would remain eligible but for attaining such age.
[81 FR 86452, Nov. 30, 2016]
HomeAssisted Schools...Freeport, Bahamas: Lucaya International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Freeport, Bahamas: Lucaya International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

March 27, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +1-242-373-4004 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Catarina Song Chen 
        -  E-mail: admin@lisbahamas.org | Website: www.lucayainternationalschool.com| Special Needs information can be found here. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Freeport- 2024 Special Needs- Bahamas) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

**Lucaya International School**(LIS) is an independent, nondenominational day school offering the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program from pre-kindergarten through year 13 (ages 3-18). The school was founded in 1998 and is authorized by the IB Organization and accredited by the Council of International Schools, and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

Office of Overseas SchoolsThe Bahamas

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.196 Disclosure of review results. ( a ) CMS and the State administering agency promptly report the results of reviews under §§ 460.190 and 460.192 to the PACE organization, along with any recommendations for changes to the organization's program.
( b ) CMS and the State administering agency make the results of reviews available to the public upon request.
( c ) The PACE organization must post a notice of the availability of the results of the most recent review and any plans of correction or responses related to the most recent review.
( d ) The PACE organization must make the review results available for examination in a place readily accessible to participants, their families, their caregivers, and their authorized representatives.
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 25677, June 3, 2019]
#### Lawrence M. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. LEE CHEVROLET, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. OO-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 7, 1979.

Kenneth F. Hoffman, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Nicholas E. Monsour and John D. Milton, Jr., of Martin, Ade, Birchfield & Johnson, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence M. Taylor, seeks review of two circuit court orders by petition for common law certiorari. The first order, striking petitioner’s claim for punitive damages, is not reviewable because the petition was filed nearly a year after the order was rendered. Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(c). The second order, transferring the remaining claim for compensatory damages to county court, was proper because the allegations in the complaint did not in good faith support the sum demanded or actually placed in *475controversy.1 See *Anderson v. Burwell Motor Company,*73 So.2d 822 (Fla.1954) and *Mendoza v. Farrell,*199 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).

The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

MILLS, C. J., and ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

1

. At pretrial conference, petitioner’s counsel advised the court that provable compensatory damages were less than $2,500.
###### Editorial Note on Part 431

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 431.404 Definitions.

For the purposes of this subpart:

*Demonstration* means any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which the Secretary approves under the authority of section 1115 of the Act because, in the judgment of the Secretary, it is likely to assist in promoting the statutory objectives of the Medicaid or CHIP program.

*Indian Health Program* means a program as defined at section 4(12) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, (Pub. L. 94-437).

*Public notice* means a notice issued by a government agency or legislative body that contains sufficient detail to notify the public at large of a proposed action, consistent with the provisions of § 431.408 of this subpart.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JUL 12 2011 


Ms. Sheila C. Holman, OFFICE nF 

Director, Division of Air Quality AIR AND RAD ATlnN 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

1641 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

Dear Ms. Holman: 

Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2011, requesting an extension of the public comment 

period for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coaland Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialConunercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule 

MATS), which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a 

public conunent period of 60 days; that period would have ended on July 5, 2011. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment 

period by 30 days to August 4. 

While we are extending the comment period, we are not seeking to extend the November 16, 

2011, deadline for signature of the final rule, and remain conunitted to meeting that deadline. 

The 30-day extension will provide the public_with a 140-day period to review the proposal. As 

you know, interested parties were aware of the posting on March 16, 2011, of the signed 

proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttnJatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with 

much of the pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the 

proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a 

little over six weeks later, on May 3, 2011, marking the beginning of the formal public comment 

period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written 

comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. It will also provide at least 60 days 

for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was 

signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this comment period is 

significantly longer than statutorily required. 

Again, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt of your comments. 

Internet Address (URL)' http Ilwwwepa 9C>v 


RecycledJRecyclable • Prmted with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process ChlOrine Free RecVcled Paper
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                              AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11
                                                                    ----------


                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                  ----------------------------------------


                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                      January 31,
                                                2 0 0 2        2 0 0 1
                                                -------        -------

Basic and diluted earnings:
  Net loss                                    $ (496,509)    $ (644,043)
                                              ----------     ----------

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding           2,565,606      2,559,453
                                              ----------     ----------

Total weighted shares outstanding              2,565,606      2,559,453
                                              ----------     ----------

Basic and diluted loss per common share       $     (.19)    $     (.25)
                                              ==========     ==========
<PAGE>



Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Enzon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Craig A. Tooman, Executive Vice President Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.

September 28, 2005                    By: /s/Craig A. Tooman
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Craig A. Tooman
                                          Executive Vice President Finance and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 482.60 Special provisions applying to psychiatric hospitals. Psychiatric hospital must— ( a ) Be primarily engaged in providing, by or under the supervision of a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, psychiatric services for the diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill persons;
( b ) Meet the conditions of participation specified in §§ 482.1 through 482.23 and §§ 482.25 through 482.57;
( c ) Maintain clinical records on all patients, including records sufficient to permit CMS to determine the degree and intensity of treatment furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, as specified in § 482.61; and
( d ) Meet the staffing requirements specified in § 482.62.
[72 FR 60788, Oct. 26, 2007]
H. R. 1830 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To extend the authorities of the Andean Trade Preference Act until February 

29, 2008. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 208(a) of the Andean Trade Preference 

Act (19 U.S.C. 3206(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2007’’ 

and inserting ‘‘February 29, 2008’’. 

(b) REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—Section 208 of the 

Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3206) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(a) TERMINATION.—Subject to subsection 

(b), no’’ and inserting ‘‘No’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (b). 

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPAREL ARTICLES. 

Section 204(b)(3)(B) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 

U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)) is amended— 

(1) in clause (iii)— 

(A) in subclause (II)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘Subject to section 208, the’’ and 

inserting ‘‘The’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘4 succeeding 1-year periods’’ and 

inserting ‘‘5 succeeding 1-year periods’’; and 

(B) in subclause (III)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘means 2 percent’’ and inserting 

‘‘means— 

‘‘(aa) 2 percent’’; 

(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting 

‘‘; and’’; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(bb) for the 1-year period beginning October 

1, 2007, the percentage determined under item 

(aa) for the 1-year period beginning October 1, 

2006.’’; and 

(2) in clause (v)(II)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Subject to section 208, during’’ and 

inserting ‘‘During’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘3 succeeding 1-year periods’’ and 

inserting ‘‘4 succeeding 1-year periods’’. 
H. R. 1830—2 

SEC. 3. MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEES. 

Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘September 30, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘October 14, 2014’’. 

SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES. 

Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking ‘‘114.25 

percent’’ and inserting ‘‘114.50 percent’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2927 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2927

   To amend the Fair Housing Act regarding local and State laws and 
           regulations governing residential care facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 1996

Mr. Bilbray (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Packard, Mr. Cunningham, and 
 Mr. Filner) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Fair Housing Act regarding local and State laws and 
           regulations governing residential care facilities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 816 of the 
Fair Housing Act is amended by adding at the end ``Nothing in this 
title shall be construed to invalidate or limit any reasonable local or 
State law or regulation governing residential care facilities, 
including laws and regulations governing the proximity of such 
facilities to each other, the maximum allowable number of occupants, 
whether related or unrelated, of such a facility or other dwelling, or 
the ownership, use, or occupancy of a residential care facility by a 
convicted felon, registered sex offender, or reeovering drug addict. As 
used in this section, the term `residential care facility' means a 
building or place that is maintained and operated to provide sleeping 
accommodations, with or without food service, to disabled 
individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```