alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.156 Other enrollment procedures. ( a ) *Items a PACE organization must give a participant upon enrollment.* After the participant signs the enrollment agreement, the PACE organization must give the participant the following: ( 1 ) A copy of the enrollment agreement.
( 2 ) A PACE membership card that indicates that he or she is a PACE participant and that includes the phone number of the PACE organization.
( 3 ) Emergency information to be posted in his or her home identifying the individual as a PACE participant and explaining how to access emergency services.
( b ) *Submittal of participant information to CMS and the State.* The PACE organization must submit participant information to CMS and the State administering agency, in accordance with established procedures.
( c ) *Changes in enrollment agreement information.* If there are changes in the enrollment agreement information at any time during the participant's enrollment, the PACE organization must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Give an updated copy of the information to the participant.
( 2 ) Explain the changes to the participant and his or her representative or caregiver in a manner they understand.
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 25676, June 3, 2019]
#### § 456.435 Description of methods and criteria: Continued stay review dates.

The UR plan must describe the methods and criteria that the group performing UR uses to assign initial and subsequent continued stay review dates under §§ 456.433 and 456.434.
HomeHuman Rights and Democracy

# Human Rights and Democracy

515 items

        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on Religious Freedom Repression by Non-State Actors, including Terrorist Groups	  July 26, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on Iran	  July 26, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on Counterterrorism as a False Pretext for Religious Freedom Repression	  July 26, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on China	  July 26, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on Burma	  July 26, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom Statement on Blasphemy/Apostasy Laws	  July 26, 2018 
        -    		Potomac Declaration	   
        -    Other Release  		CT/INL Tunisia: Civilian Security Sector Train-the-Trainer Performance Evaluation	  January 31, 2018 
        -    Report  		Report on Serious Human Rights Abuses or Censorship in North Korea	  October 26, 2017 
        -    		Reports	   

previous page1…49505152next page

Back to Top
#### George W. McGrath, Appellant, *v.*Leonard F. Pitkin, Respondent.

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the answer and. from an interlocutory judgment entered thereon.

George S. Daniels, for appellant.

George Bell (Benjamin Patterson, of counsel), for respondent.

Schuchman, J.

The complaint sets forth three causes of action-on promissory notes, which were made by the defendant, to the order of one Nielson, who indorsed and delivered them to the plaintiff.

The answer admits the allegations set forth in the first, fourth, and seventh paragraphs of the complaint, among which are that, the notes were given for a good and valuable consideration, and then sets up the defense of a want of consideration in the making of the note and a counterclaim or offset against the payee as if the holder was not an innocent holder before maturity, and also sets, up the affirmative defense of payment.

The plaintiff interposes a demurrer in the following language:

*“*The plaintiff hereby demurs to the defenses consisting of new matter and the counterclaim contained in the defendant’s answer, on the ground that they and each of them are insufficient in law upon the face thereof.”

The court at Special Term overruled the demurrer, with leave- • to the plaintiff to amend on payment of costs.

The defendant-respondent invokes the rule that before a demurrer to the answer is considered, the first pleading is to be looked into.

*863He claims that the complaint does not set forth that the plaintiff is a holder before maturity and that, therefore, he cannot object to any defense which is good against the payee.

The complaint is good and sufficient; it need not allege that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff before maturity.

The presumption of law is that when the payee indorses and delivers the note to another, the latter is a *6ona fide*holder for value, and the burden of proof is upon the maker, in regard to want of failure of consideration between the maker and the payee. Mechanics & Traders’ Bank v. Crow, 60 N. Y. 85.

The want of consideration and separate defense firstly set up in the answer are insufficient; the separate defense of payment is good and sufficient.

It does not aver to whom payment was made, hut if an answer is not sufficiently definite or specific and certain, the remedy is by motion. Farmers & Citizens’ Bank v. Sherman, 6 Bosw. 181; Hubener v. Sims, 2 Law Bull. 64.

The rule of law is that if a demurrer is taken to several defenses and only one is good, the demurrer will be overruled. Ross v. Duffy, 12 N. Y. St. Repr. 584.

Interlocutory judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Conlan, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
HomeCases Filed Against the Republic of Peru...Latam Hydro v. Peru

# 									Latam Hydro v. Peru							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

Latam Hydro LLC, a U.S. enterprise, brought claims arising under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement on its own behalf and on behalf of CH MAMACOCHA, S.R.L., its Peruvian operations company.  Claimants allege that the Government of Peru breached obligations under Article 10.5 (Minimum Standard of Treatment), Article 10.7 (Expropriation and Compensation), and Article 10.4 (Most-Favored-Nation Treatment).

Discover further information and documents concerning this claim

11/19/2021  U.S. Article 10.20.2 Submission [281 KB]  (Accessible Version [357 KB])

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsOffice of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment DisputesPeru

Back to Top
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...North Macedonia (19-1125) – Amendment and Extension of Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement of January 25, 2006

# 									North Macedonia (19-1125) – Amendment and Extension of Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement of January 25, 2006							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

November 25, 2019

Scientific and Technical Cooperation

Signed at Skopje November 25, 2019; entered into force November 25, 2019.

Amendment and extension of agreement done January 25, 2006. TIAS 08-714
Download Agreement						 [234 KB]

Tags

North MacedoniaScientific and Technological CooperationTreaties

Back to Top
HomeCertain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)...Materials from the public docket of the U.S. Supreme Court Proceedings in Peterson (Docket No. 14-770)

# 									Materials from the public docket of the U.S. Supreme Court Proceedings in Peterson (Docket No. 14-770)							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

May 17, 2019

**Materials from the public docket of the U.S. Supreme Court Proceedings in Peterson (Docket No. 14-770)**

**04/20/16**Opinion, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Apr. 20, 2016)**01/06/16**Reply Brief for Petitioner, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2016) **12/23/15**Brief for the United States As Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2015) **12/16/15**Brief for Respondents, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2015)**11/16/15**Brief for Petitioner, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S., Nov. 16, 2015)**09/01/15**Supplemental Brief for Petitioner, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Sept. 1, 2015)**08/19/15**Brief for the United States As Amicus Curiae, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Aug. 19, 2015)**03/17/15**Reply for Petitioner, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Mar. 17, 2015)**03/02/15**Brief in Opposition, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et al., No. 14-770 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2015)**12/29/14**Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Bank Markazi a/k/a The Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. Dec.29, 2014)

Back to Top
§ 493.827 Standard; Mycology. ( a ) Failure to attain an overall testing event score of at least 80 percent is unsatisfactory performance.
( b ) Failure to participate in a testing event is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event. Consideration may be given to those laboratories failing to participate in a testing event only if— ( 1 ) Patient testing was suspended during the time frame allotted for testing and reporting proficiency testing results;
( 2 ) The laboratory notifies the inspecting agency and the proficiency testing program within the time frame for submitting proficiency testing results of the suspension of patient testing and the circumstances associated with failure to perform tests on proficiency testing samples; and
( 3 ) The laboratory participated in the previous two proficiency testing events.
( c ) Failure to return proficiency testing results to the proficiency testing program within the time frame specified by the program is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event.
( d ) ( 1 ) For any unsatisfactory testing event for reasons other than a failure to participate, the laboratory must undertake appropriate training and employ the technical assistance necessary to correct problems associated with a proficiency testing failure.
( 2 ) Remedial action must be taken and documented, and the documentation must be maintained by the laboratory for two years from the date of participation in the proficiency testing event.
( e ) Failure to achieve an overall testing event score of satisfactory performance for two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
#### CARRUTH MORTGAGE CORP. and Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. and American Bank & Trust Co. v. F & B BUILDERS, INC.

No. 64322.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1979.

In re Baton Rouge Supply Co., Inc. and Baton Rouge Plumbing Supply, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari, First Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 369 So.2d 1159.

Writ denied.

TATE, MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., would grant the writ.
§ 438.505 General rule and applicability. ( a ) *General rule.* As part of its quality assessment and improvement strategy for its managed care program, each State contracting with an applicable managed care plan, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, to furnish services to Medicaid beneficiaries— ( 1 ) ( i ) Must adopt the QRS framework developed by CMS, which must implement either the MAC QRS methodology developed by CMS or an alternative MAC QRS rating methodology approved by CMS in accordance with § 438.515(c) of this subpart.
( ii ) May, in addition to the MAC QRS framework adopted under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, implement website features in addition to those identified in § 438.520(a), as described in § 438.520(c).
( 2 ) Must implement such managed care quality rating system by the end of the fourth calendar year following July 9, 2024, unless otherwise specified in this subpart.
( 3 ) Must use the State's beneficiary support system implemented under § 438.71 to provide the services identified at § 438.71(b)(1)(i) and (ii) to beneficiaries, enrollees, or both seeking assistance using the managed care quality rating system implemented by the State under this subpart.
( b ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this subpart apply to States contracting with MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs for the delivery of services covered under Medicaid. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to Medicare Advantage Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans that contract with States for only Medicaid coverage of Medicare cost sharing.
( c ) *Continued alignment.* To maintain the QRS framework, CMS aligns the mandatory measure set and methodology described in §§ 438.510 and 438.515 of this subpart, to the extent appropriate, with the qualified health plan quality rating system developed in accordance with 45 CFR 156.1120, the MA and Part D quality rating system, and other similar CMS quality measurement and rating initiatives.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-XXXX-XXXX Directorate ID: 2009-SW-19-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 42 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This amendment is prompted by a report of a main-landing gear that would not retract. The 

manufacturer reports that certain actuators were manufactured below the specified hardness on the lockdown keys. This condition, if not corrected could lead to a landing gear collapse following a roll-on 

landing that exceeds 50 knots groundspeed. The AD limits the maximum groundspeed for a normal landing 

or takeoff from 65 knots to 50 knots for helicopters with a certain serial-numbered landing gear retract 

actuator (actuator). Instead of limiting the groundspeed, replacing the affected actuator with a modified 

actuator would be terminating action for this AD’s requirements. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $7,841

Labor per Helicopter

(XX x $85/work-hour)

8 work hours X $80///////////// per work hour = 

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $ 

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: First Last

We estimate that this AD will affect 42 helicopters. It will take a minimal amount of time to make the 

limitation changes. If the operator replaces an affected actuator with a modified actuator, it will take about 

8 work hours at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $7,841 per 

helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be 

$356,202, assuming all the helicopter operators install modified actuators.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. This 

action requires making pen and ink changes, inserting a copy of this AD, or inserting specified temporary 

revisions into the Limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) limiting the maximum 

groundspeed for a normal landing or takeoff from 65 knots to 50 knots for helicopters with a certain serialnumbered landing gear retract actuator (actuator). Instead of limiting the groundspeed, replacing the 

affected actuator with a modified actuator would be terminating action for the requirements of this AD. 

This amendment is prompted by a report of a main landing gear that would not retract. The manufacturer 

reports that certain actuators were manufactured below the specified hardness on the lock-down keys. This 

condition, if not corrected could lead to a landing gear collapse following a roll-on landing that exceeds 50 

knots groundspeed. These actions are intended to prevent landing gear collapse and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter.
§ 436.522 Determination of age. ( a ) In determining age, the agency must use the common law method (under which an age is reached the day before the anniversary of birth) or the popular usage method (under which a specific age is reached on the anniversary of birth), whichever is used under the corresponding State plan for OAA, AFDC, AB, APTD, or AABD.
( b ) The agency may use an arbitrary date, such as July 1, for determining an individual's age if the year, but not the month, of his birth is known.
[58 FR 4936, Jan. 19, 1993]
Exhibit 32.2

         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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to
[SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her
knowledge; 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 as of and for
the periods covered in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union
Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon
-----------------------------
Marsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer


March 30, 2004


<PAGE>
§ 493.20 Laboratories performing tests of moderate complexity. ( a ) A laboratory may qualify for a certificate to perform tests of moderate complexity provided that it restricts its test performance to waived tests or examinations and one or more tests or examinations meeting criteria for tests of moderate complexity including the subcategory of PPM procedures.
( b ) A laboratory that performs tests or examinations of moderate complexity must meet the applicable requirements in subpart C or subpart D, and subparts F, H, J, K, M, and Q of this part. Under a registration certificate or certificate of compliance, laboratories also performing PPM procedures must meet the inspection requirements at §§ 493.1773 and 493.1777.
( c ) If the laboratory also performs waived tests, compliance with § 493.801(a) and (b)(7) and subparts J, K, and M of this part is not applicable to the waived tests. However, the laboratory must comply with the requirements in §§ 493.15(e), 493.801(b)(1) through (6), 493.1771, 493.1773, and 493.1775.
[60 FR 20044, Apr. 24, 1995, as amended at 68 FR 3702, Jan. 24, 2003; 68 FR 50723, Aug. 22, 2003; 87 FR 41232, July 11, 2022]
#### § 484.365 Payments for home health services under the Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model.

CMS determines a payment adjustment up to the applicable percent, upward or downward, under the expanded HHVBP Model for each competing HHA based on the agency's Total Performance Score using a linear exchange function that includes all other HHAs in its cohort that received a Total Performance Score for the applicable performance year. Payment adjustments made under the expanded HHVBP Model are calculated as a percentage of otherwise-applicable payments for home health services provided under section 1895 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff).
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mary L. Dotz, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adaptec, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | /s/  MARY L. DOTZ      
|                      |  |  |  | Mary L. Dotz           
|Date: October 7, 2009 |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
exv10w14






Exhibit 10.14




First Amendment

to

Republic Services, Inc.

Executive Incentive Plan




Introduction




     Effective January 1, 2003, the Board of Directors adopted the amended, restated and renamed
Republic Services, Inc. Executive Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which was thereafter submitted to
and approved by the shareholders of the Company.



     Pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Company is authorized to amend the Plan and in the exercise of that authority has amended the
Plan as follows, effective as of January 30, 2007.



Amendment




     The Plan is amended by deleting the current provisions of Section 5.2 thereof in its entirety
and, in lieu thereof, substituting the following:




5.2 Death, Disability or Retirement. In the event that a Participant dies or his or her
employment is terminated by reason of Disability or Retirement after an Award has been
granted to the Participant but before it has been determined to be earned pursuant to
Section 4.2, there shall be paid to the Participant (or in the event of death, to the
Participant’s Beneficiary or estate) an amount equal to the full targeted Award that the
Committee was authorized in accordance with the Award Formula to pay to the Participant
pursuant to Section 4.3 had his or her employment continued through the end of the
Performance Period and had all Performance Goals been met. Payment of all such Awards shall
be made within thirty (30) days following the date of termination of the Participant’s
employment as a result of death, Disability or Retirement.
NO. 06-14-00008-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARISOL PRIEGO Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

On Appeal from Cause Number 

### 41,399-B From the 124 Judicial District Court of Gregg County, Texas

th

Ebb B. Mobley, counsel for Appellant in this case, respectfully informs the Court that counsel has complied with Rule 48.4 by providing a copy of the opinion in this case to Appellant and informing Appellant of the right to file a petition for discretionary review. The Certified Mail number for confirmation is 7011 1570 0001 6360 5551

Respectfully submitted,
Ebb B. Mobley Attorney at Law 422 North Center Street-Lower Level P.O. Box 2309 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone (903) 757-3331 Facsimile (903) 753-6316 ebbmob@aol.com
/s/ Ebb B. Mobley EBB B. MOBLEY Attorney for Appellant ACCEPTED 06-14-00008-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 2/20/2015 2:25:04 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK