alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Update by the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services  on Negotiations Toward a Pandemic Accord

# 									Joint Update by the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services  on Negotiations Toward a Pandemic Accord							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 8, 2023

The Fourth Meeting at the World Health Organization of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body working on a pandemic accord concluded last week.  The United States used this meeting to underscore its commitment to the process, with a goal of developing an accord that builds on lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and strengthens U.S. national security by establishing clear, agreed roles and responsibilities for the WHO and its member states and partners.

Lead U.S. negotiator Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto led the U.S. delegation to this meeting and engaged with a broad range of counterparts to promote an accord that would build capacity, reduce the threat posed by zoonotic disease, enable rapid and more equitable responses, and establish sustainable financing, governance, and accountability to break the cycle of pandemic panic and neglect.

Much work remains to be done on this accord to ensure that the text meets these complex needs and is ultimately implementable for the United States.  The next meeting of the Negotiating Body will take place next month, with a target date for conclusion of May 2024.

While the United States is deeply committed to a process that should result in shared commitments and shared responsibilities among nations, we are also aware of concerns by some that these negotiations could result in diminished U.S. sovereignty.  The United States will not support any measure at the World Health Organization, including in these negotiations, that in any way undermines our sovereignty or security.

Any accord resulting from these negotiations would be designed to increase the transparency and effectiveness of cooperation among nations during global pandemics and would in no way empower the World Health Organization or any other international body to impose, direct, or oversee national actions. It will not compromise the ability of American citizens to make their own health care decisions.

COVID-19 served as a stark reminder that infectious diseases do not stop at our borders. In order to protect Americans from current and future health threats, we must ensure that the lessons of COVID-19 and other infectious disease threats are reflected in a clear strategy rooted in global engagement.

Tags

Bureau of International Organization AffairsCOVID-19Global HealthGlobal HealthOffice of the SpokespersonSecurity

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 12.01

LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. and SUBSIDIARIES  COMPUTATION of RATIO of EARNINGS to FIXED CHARGES  (Dollars in millions)  (Unaudited)

|                                                    |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   | For the
Three
Months
Ended
Feb. 28
2003
|--------------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | - | ------ | ------ | - | ------ | ------ | - | ------ | ------ | - | ---------------------------------------
|
|
|Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations         |                     | $ | 847    |        | $ | 1,013  |        | $ | 1,617  |        | $ | 1,129                                  
|Add: Fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest) |                     |   | 14,746 |        |   | 12,552 |        |   | 16,076 |        |   | 13,510                                 
|                                                    |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |                                        
|Pre-tax earnings before fixed charges               |                     |   | 15,593 |        |   | 13,565 |        |   | 17,693 |        |   | 14,639                                 
|                                                    |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |                                        
|Fixed charges:                                      |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |                                        
|                                                    | Interest            |   |        | 14,730 |   |        | 12,535 |   |        | 16,059 |   |                                        
|                                                    | Other(a)            |   |        | 20     |   |        | 17     |   |        | 17     |   |                                        
|                                                    |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |                                        
|                                                    | Total fixed charges |   | $      | 14,750 |   | $      | 12,552 |   | $      | 16,076 |   | $                                      
|                                                    |                     |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |        |        |   |                                        
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                  |                     |   | 1.06   |        |   | 1.08   |        |   | 1.10   |        |   | 1.08                                   

---

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.72

<PAGE>


                         SURRENDER AND WAIVER AGREEMENT

     AGREEMENT dated this 27th day of January, 1997 between URT INDUSTRIES, INC.
("URT"),  a Florida  corporation  with  offices  at 1180 East  Hallandale  Beach
Boulevard,  Hallandale,  Florida 33009,  and PEACHES  ENTERTAINMENT  CORPORATION
("PEC"),  a Florida  corporation  with  offices  at 1180 East  Hallandale  Beach
Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida 33009.

          WHEREAS,  URT is the owner of 2,500  shares of the Series A  preferred
          stock of PEC, and

          WHEREAS,  the  certificate of  incorporation  of PEC provides that the
          holders of outstanding  shares of Series A preferred stock of PEC have
          the right to convert  such shares into shares of common  stock of PEC,
          and

          WHEREAS,  the directors of both URT and PEC have determined that it is
          in the  respective  best interests of URT and PEC for URT to surrender
          and waive its right to  convert  such  outstanding  shares of Series A
          preferred stock into shares of PEC common stock,

          IT IS, THEREFORE, AGREED:

     1. In  consideration  of $1.00 and other  good and  valuable  consideration
received by it, URT agrees to and does,  by the  execution  and delivery of this
instrument,  surrender  and waive its right to convert  the 2,500  shares of the
Series A  preferred  stock of PEC which  are  owned by it into  shares of common
stock of PEC as provided for in the certificate of incorporation of PEC.


<PAGE>


     2. From and after the date hereof, PEC shall have no obligation to continue
to reserve any shares of its common  stock for the  possible  conversion  of the
2,500  shares of Series A preferred  stock owned by URT and all shares of common
stock of PEC which had been reserved for such purpose shall be deemed to be part
of the authorized but unissued shares of stock of PEC.

     3. URT agrees to execute and deliver  such other and further  documents  at
any time as PEC may reasonably  request in order to further evidence such waiver
and surrender.

     4. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Florida.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  each of the undersigned has executed this document on
the date and year set forth above.

                                            URT INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                            By:        s/Brian Wolk
                                               ---------------------------------


                                            PEACHES ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION

                                            By:        s/Jason Wolk
                                               ---------------------------------

                                       -2-
EXHIBIT 32





FACT CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of FACT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacqueline Danforth as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/Jacqueline DanforthName:
Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
Principal Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.2615 Review by the Administrator. ( a ) *Request for review by Administrator.* If an MA organization is dissatisfied with the hearing official's decision, it may request that the CMS Administrator review the decision. ( 1 ) The request must be filed with the CMS Administrator within 30 calendar days of the date of the hearing official's decision.
( 2 ) The request must provide evidence or reasons to substantiate the request.
( b ) *Content of request.* The MA organization must submit with its request all supporting documentation, evidence, and substantiation that it wants to be considered. ( 1 ) Documentation, evidence, or substantiation submitted after the filing of the request will not be considered.
( 2 ) Neither the MA organization, nor CMS may submit new evidence.
( c ) *Discretionary review.* After receiving a request for review, the CMS Administrator has the discretion to review the hearing official's decision in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section or to decline to review said decision.
( d ) *Notification of decision whether to review.* The Administrator notifies the MA organization within 45 days of receiving the MA organization's hearing request of whether he or she intends to review the hearing official's decision. ( 1 ) If the Administrator agrees to review the hearing official's decision, CMS may file a rebuttal statement within 30 days of the Administrator's notice to the plan that the request for review has been accepted. CMS sends its rebuttal statement to the plan at the same time it is submitted to the Administrator.
( 2 ) If the CMS Administrator declines to review the hearing official's decision, the hearing official's decision is final and binding.
( e ) *CMS Administrator's review.* If the CMS Administrator agrees to review the hearing official's decision, he or she determines, based upon this decision, the hearing record, and any arguments submitted by the MA organization or CMS in accordance with this section, whether the determination should be upheld, reversed, or modified. The Administrator furnishes a written decision, which is final and binding, to the MA organization and to CMS.
§ 478.48 Reopening and revision of a reconsidered determination or a decision. ( a ) *QIO reopenings* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* A QIO or QIO subcontractor that made a reconsidered determination, or conducted a review of a DRG change as described in § 478.15, that is otherwise binding, may reopen and revise the reconsidered determination or review, either on its own motion or at the request of a party, within one year from the date of the reconsidered determination or review.
( 2 ) *Extension of time limit.* A QIO or QIO subcontractor may reopen and revise its reconsidered determination, or its review of a DRG change as described in § 478.15, that is otherwise binding, after one year but within four years of the date of the determination or review if— ( i ) The QIO receives new material evidence;
( ii ) The QIO erred in interpretation or application of Medicare coverage policy;
( iii ) There is an error apparent on the face of the evidence upon which the reconsidered determination was based; or
( iv ) There is a clerical error in the statement of the reconsidered determination.
( b ) *ALJ or attorney adjudicator and Council Reopening—Applicable procedures.* The ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or the Council, whichever made the decision, may reopen and revise the decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 405.980 of this chapter, which concerns reopenings and revised decisions under subpart I of part 405 of this chapter.
( c ) *Fraud or similar abusive practice.* A reconsidered determination, a review of a DRG change, or a decision of an ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or the Council may be reopened and revised at any time, if the reconsidered determination, review, or decision was obtained through fraud or a similar abusive practice that does not support a formal finding of fraud.
[50 FR 15372, Apr. 17, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 32349, June 24, 1996; 62 FR 25855, May 12, 1997. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999; 77 FR 68563, Nov. 15, 2012; 82 FR 5140, Jan. 17, 2017]
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 09-1869

MAYNOR ALONSO LARIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Attorney General of the United States

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 21, 2010, is amended

as follows:

On page 2, line 17, change "212(a)(6)(A)(I)" to

"212(a)(6)(A)(i)".

On page 2, line 18, change "1182(a)(6)(A)(I)" to

"1182(a)(6)(A)(i)".
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Morocco Throne Day

# 									Morocco Throne Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

July 30, 2023

On behalf of the Government and citizens of the United States of America, I extend my best wishes and congratulations to his Majesty King Mohammed VI and the people of Morocco as you celebrate Throne Day and the 24th Anniversary of his Majesty’s accession.

Our deep and abiding relationship continues to be a pillar of peace and stability for our two countries and the region.  We commend King Mohammed VI for his role in furthering regional stability, security, and prosperity as well as advancing our shared interests.  Morocco and the United States have a deep and historic relationship that continues to benefit the people of both our countries.  I extend my warmest congratulations to His Majesty the King and to the Moroccan people on this Throne Day, and we thank you for being one of our oldest and closest friends.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsMoroccoOffice of the SpokespersonPartnershipsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Exhibit 21.1
   State or otherJurisdiction of
    
    Name under whichincorporation or
    
    subsidiary doesName of Subsidiary
    
    organization
    
    businessDionex (U.K.) Limited
    
    England
    
    Dionex (U.K.) Ltd.Dionex GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    Dionex GmbHDionex S.p.A.
    
    Italy
    
    Dionex S.p.A.Dionex S.A.
    
    France
    
    Dionex S.A.Dionex(Europe)Management AG
    
    Switzerland
    
    Dionex European ManagementDionex Export Corporation
    
    U.S. Virgin Islands
    
    Dionex Export CorporationDionex Canada Ltd. /Ltee.
    
    Canada
    
    Dionex Canada Ltd./LteeDionex Benelux B.V.
    
    The Netherlands
    
    Dionex Benelux B.V.Nippon Dionex K.K.
    
    Japan
    
    Nippon Dionex K.K.Dionex (Switzerland) AG
    
    Switzerland
    
    Dionex(Switzerland) AGDionex Austria GmbH
    
    Austria
    
    Dionex Austria GmbHDionex Softron GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    Dionex Softron GmbHDionex Holding GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    Dionex Holding GmbHDionex Denmark A/S
    
    Denmark
    
    Dionex Denmark A/SDionex 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 LtdaDionex Taiwan Ltd.
    
    Taiwan
    
    Dionex Taiwan Ltd.Dionex Singapore PTD Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    Dionex Singapore PTD LTD.Dionex Sweden AB
    
    Sweden
    
    Dionex Sweden ABDionex Ireland Ltd.
    
    Ireland
    
    Dionex Ireland Ltd.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Willie E. OATIS v. H. J. DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institution.

No. 66251.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Willie E. Oatis, applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus. Orleans Parish. No. 259-538.

Denied. Moot.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the
annual period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR

SABINE ROYALTY TRUST



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                          
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Ron E. Hooper                     
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Ron E. Hooper,                           
|Date: March 3, 2014 |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Royalty Management

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 485.606 Designation and certification of CAHs. ( a ) *Criteria for State designation.* ( 1 ) A State that has established a Medicare rural hospital flexibility program described in section 1820(c) of the Act may designate one or more facilities as CAHs if each facility meets the CAH conditions of participation in this subpart F.
( 2 ) The State must not deny any hospital that is otherwise eligible for designation as a CAH under this paragraph (a) solely because the hospital has entered into an agreement under which the hospital may provide posthospital SNF care as described in § 482.58 of this chapter.
( b ) Criteria for CMS certification. CMS certifies a facility as a CAH if— ( 1 ) The facility is designated as a CAH by the State in which it is located and has been surveyed by the State survey agency or by CMS and found to meet all conditions of participation in this part and all other applicable requirements for participation in part 489 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The facility is a medical assistance facility operating in Montana or a rural primary care hospital designated by CMS before August 5, 1997, and is otherwise eligible to be designated as a CAH by the State under the rules in this subpart.
[62 FR 46036, Aug. 29, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 26359, May 12, 1998; 79 FR 27155, May 12, 2014]
****

This chart presents 1997 Utah 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 Utah
'95 export data for Utah
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
§ 423.880 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart is based on section 1860D-22 of the Act, as amended by section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA).
( b ) *Scope.* This section implements the statutory requirement that a subsidy payment be made to sponsors of qualified retiree prescription drug plans.
41038.

#### REEVES v. SOUTHEASTERN STAGES, INC.

Russell, Judge.

“In passing on the general grounds of a motion for new trial, this court passes not on the weight but on the sufficiency of the evidence. It is our duty to determine whether the verdict as rendered can be sustained under any reasonable view taken of the proofs submitted to the jury.” *Ingram v. State,*204 Ga. 164, 184 (48 SE2d 891). All grounds of the motion for a new trial in this bill of exceptions are but amplifications of the general grounds. It was alleged that the plaintiff, a passenger in one of the defendant’s busses, was thrown off balance when the driver suddenly started the bus with a violent jerk, and sustained injuries including a fractured skull and broken neck. The testimony of the plaintiff as to the manner in which he was injured was directly controverted by the defendant’s driver both as to the manner in which the bus was parked and whether or not the vehicle started smoothly. The plaintiff did not report his fall until the bus came to its next regular stop several miles down the road. No witness was produced who saw the plaintiff fall. The only injury as to which any medical testimony was developed was a separation of the first and second cervical vertebrae. The plaintiff’s medical witnesses admitted that the defect might be of long standing and the defendant’s ex*13amining physician testified unequivocally that it was congenital. In addition, facts were elicited from the plaintiff which might have tended to cast doubt on his credibility in the mind of the jury. Since the evidence was in conflict, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Decided January 14, 1965.

*B. P. Herndon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, W. Colquitt Carter,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*