alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Programs
- Reports

HomeBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor...Leadership – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor					

							Our bureau is led by an experienced team of public servants, dedicated to the U.S. mission of spreading democracy and respect for human rights globally. The biographies of each of our bureau's senior staff display the diversity of experience and expertise currently benefiting the U.S. cause of promoting freedom around the world.						

9											Items									

          -  							Gilchrist, Robert S.						Senior Bureau OfficialBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Peters, Allison						Acting Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Chulick, Nicole						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Le Mon, Christopher						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Roig, Enrique						Deputy Assistant Secretary 
          -  							Stern, Jessica						U.S. Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI+) PersonsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Minkara, Sara						Special Advisor on International Disability RightsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Cormier Smith, Desirée						Special Representative for Racial Equity and JusticeBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 
          -  							Rodríguez, Kelly M. Fay						Special Representative for International Labor AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on the United States-Kazakhstan Enhanced Strategic Partnership Dialogue

# 									Joint Statement on the United States-Kazakhstan Enhanced Strategic Partnership Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

December 6, 2022

The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Kazakhstan on the occasion of the annual United States-Kazakhstan Enhanced Strategic Partnership Dialogue.

*Begin Text:*

On December 5, 2022, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu welcomed First Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Umarov and a Kazakhstani delegation to Washington for the annual United States-Kazakhstan Enhanced Strategic Partnership Dialogue (ESPD). The U.S.-Kazakhstan ESPD was established as an annual platform to discuss bilateral and regional issues and advance shared priorities.

Building on the strength of 30 years of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and Kazakhstani delegations discussed regional geopolitical issues, global nonproliferation efforts, counterterrorism and other security cooperation, the diversification of energy and trade infrastructure, climate change and the environment, education, and the importance of respect for human rights. The Kazakhstani side highlighted the need to establish permanent normal trade relations between the two countries. Assistant Secretary Lu also reaffirmed unwavering U.S. support for Kazakhstan’s independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.

First Deputy Foreign Minister Umarov underscored Kazakhstan’s commitment to implementing the reform agenda. The United States reiterated its strong support for President Tokayev’s political, economic, and social reforms which would have far-reaching benefits for the people of Kazakhstan.

Both leaders affirmed the importance of the Dialogue and the intention to hold the next ESPD in 2023. The two sides also discussed the importance of continued high-level visits over the next year.

*End Text.*

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsKazakhstanOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Edward CARSON, Jr.

No. 63092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 9, 1979.

Robert Zibilich, Robert Barnard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On September 26, 1974, defendant James Edward Carson, Jr. was convicted for first degree murder, La.R.S. 14:30 (1950), and sentenced, on the jury’s recommendation, to life imprisonment at hard labor. On appeal, this Court found that while all other assignments lacked merit, defendant had raised a serious issue regarding the denial of his motion to suppress a confession. Finding that the state had made an inconclusive showing of voluntariness, we remanded the case for a second hearing on the motion to suppress and reserved to defendant the right to appeal from an adverse ruling. 336 So.2d 844 (La.1976). On remand, the trial court denied the motion to suppress after a supplemental hearing, and defendant now appeals from that ruling.

At the supplemental hearing, the state adduced substantial evidence to rebut defendant’s allegations of coercion, which had caused us some concern on his original appeal. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the confession was freely and voluntarily given. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., do not participate.
Airlink LLC, a 14 CFR Part 91.147 Commercial Air Tour Operator, based at 2 Lafleur Road, Waterville, ME 

04901 is seeking exemption from having to maintain their FAA drug testing program under 49 CFR 40.

The reason for relief is that Airlink LLC and Air New England LLC, a 14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier, Cert. No. 

5NEA647P maintain two separate FAA drug testing programs, and could be combined into one. Airlink 

LLC and Air New England LLC are owned by the same individual (Klaus Thalinger) and operate at the 

same principal base of operation, utilizing the same aircraft and the same pilot. Airlink LLC has 4 

employees providing safety sensitive functions and Air New England has one employee providing safety 

sensitive functions. By granting the exemption to combine two drug programs into one while still 

providing the same level of safety in operations, it would help make the drug testing more efficient 

because of easier oversight of one program rather than two.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3417 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3417

     To remove a restriction on the authority of the Secretary of 
  Agriculture to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to 
 acquire goods and services directly related to improving or utilizing 
           the firefighting capability of the Forest Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 1996

  Mr. Gallegly (for himself and Mr. Schiff) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To remove a restriction on the authority of the Secretary of 
  Agriculture to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to 
 acquire goods and services directly related to improving or utilizing 
           the firefighting capability of the Forest Service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF GOODS AND SERVICES RELATED TO FIREFIGHTING.

    The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
Forest Service, may place an order with a major organizational unit 
within the Department of Agriculture or another Federal agency for 
goods or services directly related to firefighting without regard to 
the restriction contained in section 1535(a)(4) of title 31, United 
States Code, that the Secretary determine that the goods or services 
cannot be provided by contract a conveniently or cheaply by a 
commercial enterprise.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 3.544 Post hearing briefs.

The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ must fix the time for filing the briefs. The time for filing may not exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. The briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
§ 493.680 Methodology for determining the biennial fee increase. ( a ) *General rule.* Except for fees assessed to State laboratory programs approved by HHS, the fee amounts described in this subpart are subject to a biennial increase based on a two-part calculation of the Consumer Price Index—Urban (CPI-U) inflation adjustment and, if applicable, an additional increase as follows: ( 1 ) CMS calculates the inflation rate using the compounded CPI-U over 2 years and, provided that the calculated rate is greater than zero, applies an increase to all fee amounts equal to the calculated rate.
( 2 ) If the total fee amounts, including any increase applied under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, do not match or exceed actual program obligations based on a review of the previous 2 years' obligations, CMS applies an additional across the board increase to each laboratory's fees by calculating the difference between the total fee amounts and actual program obligations.
( b ) *Baseline.* Any increase applied under paragraph (a) of this section is incorporated into the baseline fee amounts for any subsequent biennial increase.
( c ) *Publication.* Any increase applied under paragraph (a) of this section, including the calculation thereof, will be published as a notice in the Federal Register.
[88 FR 90037, Dec. 28, 2023]
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3166

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 18, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

the crime of false statement in a Government matter.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3166 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Government Account3 ability Act of 1996’’.

4 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FALSE STATEMENT PENALTIES.

5 Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

8 ‘‘(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,

9 whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the exec10 utive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of

11 the United States, knowingly and willfully—

12 ‘‘(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any

13 trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

14 ‘‘(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or

15 fraudulent statement or representation; or

16 ‘‘(3) makes or uses any false writing or docu17 ment knowing the same to contain any materially

18 false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

19 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

20 5 years, or both.

21 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a) does not apply—

22 ‘‘(1) to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that

23 party’s counsel, for statements, representations,

24 writings or documents submitted by such party or

25 counsel to a judge in that proceeding; or

26 ‘‘(2) to—
3

HR 3166 RFS

1 ‘‘(A) any non-administrative matter; or

2 ‘‘(B) any investigative matter, other than

3 with respect to a person furnishing information

4 pursuant to a duly authorized investigation;

5 within the jurisdiction of an entity within the legisla6 tive branch.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
§ 424.82 Revocation of right to receive assigned benefits. ( a ) *Scope.* This section sets forth the conditions and procedures for revocation of the right of a supplier or other party to receive Medicare payments.
( b ) *Definition.* As used in this section, *other party* means an employer, facility, or health care delivery system to which Medicare may make payment under § 424.80(b) (1), (2), or (3).
( c ) *Basis for revocation.* CMS may revoke the right of a supplier or other party to receive Medicare payments if the supplier or other party, after warning by CMS or the carrier— ( 1 ) Violates the terms of assignment in § 424.55(b).
( 2 ) Continues collection efforts or fails to refund moneys incorrectly collected, in violation of the terms of assignment in § 424.55(b).
( 3 ) Executes or continues in effect a reassignment or power of attorney or any other arrangement that seeks to obtain payment contrary to the provisions of § 424.80; or
( 4 ) Fails to furnish evidence necessary to establish its compliance with the requirements of § 424.80.
( d ) *Proposed revocation: Notice and opportunity for review.* If CMS proposes to revoke the right to payment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, it will send the supplier or other party a written notice that— ( 1 ) States the reasons for the proposed revocation; and
( 2 ) Provides an opportunity for the supplier or other party to submit written argument and evidence against the proposed revocation. CMS usually allows 15 days from the date on the notice, but may extend or reduce the time as circumstances require.
( e ) *Actual revocation: Timing, notice, and opportunity for hearing* — ( 1 ) *Timing.* CMS determines whether to revoke after considering any written argument or evidence submitted by the supplier or other party or, if none is submitted, at the expiration of the period specified in the notice of proposed revocation.
( 2 ) *Notice and opportunity for hearing.* The notice of revocation specifies— ( i ) The reasons for the revocation;
( ii ) That the revocation is effective as of the date on the notice;
( iii ) That the supplier or other party may, within 60 days from the date on the notice (or a longer period if the notice so specifies), request an administrative hearing and may be represented by counsel or other qualified representative.
( iv ) That the carrier will withhold payment on any claims submitted by the supplier or other party until the period for requesting a hearing expires or, if a hearing is requested, until the hearing officer issues a decision;
( v ) That if the hearing decision reverses the revocation, the carrier will pay the supplier's or other party's claims; and
( vi ) That if a hearing is not requested or the hearing decision upholds the revocation, payment will be made to the beneficiary or to another person or agency authorized to receive payment on his or her behalf.
[53 FR 6644, Mar. 2, 1988; 53 FR 12945, Apr. 20, 1988]
#### LEWIS M. HAUPT v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 591 ; 254 U. S., 272.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

Appellant sued to recover a large sum of money for the use, which he claimed, the Government had made of his patented improvements in dikes and breakwaters in the construction of jetties, which, with dredging, had resulted in rendering navigable to seagoing vessels the channel of Aransas Pass, on the coast of Texas. *Held,*that the appropriation acts evinced the willingness of Congress to expend money in testing his patented devices, but no intention to pay him until their usefulness should be proved, and that no promise of the Government to pay him for the use made could be reasonably implied.

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 6, 1920.
#### John W. Boughton et al., Appellants, *v.*William O’Connell, Respondent.

Appeax from a judgment in favor of defendant and from an order on motion for a new trial.

W. L. Thompson (R. M. Powell, of counsel), for appellants..

Howe *&*Hummel, for respondent.

Olcott, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judg ment of the City Court in favor of the defendant for the sum of $63.72, entered upon the verdict of a jury on May 18, 1898, and from an order denying the motion made by the plaintiffs for a new trial upon the judge’s minutes, and upon all the grounds, specified in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A careful examination of the record convinces us that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was improperly denied.

Our conclusion, which might otherwise not be strong enough to permit us to annul the finding of the jury, is amply strengthened by a perusal of the defendant’s letter of October 16, 1897,, which was introduced in evidence.

Following the terms of relief granted in the case of P.ierce v. Met. St. R. Co., 21 App. Div. 427, the order denying the motion-for a new trial will be reversed, and a new trial granted upon condition that the plaintiffs pay the bill of costs and disbursements of the former trial to the defendant within ten days, the appellants to have the costs of this appeal to abide the event of the action.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Order reversed and new trial granted upon condition that plaintiffs pay the bill of costs of former trial ..within ten days, appellants to have costs to abide event.
|  To find a BISNIS staff  member who can answer  your specific questions by :**Geographical Coverage:**Geographical Coverage        Armenia    Azerbaijan    Belarus    Georgia    Kazakhstan    Kyrgyzstan    Moldova    Russia, CentralRussia, Far EastRussia, Lower VolgaRussia, MoscowRussia, Northwest        Russia,Siberia     Russia,SouthernRussia, UralsRussia, Upper Volga    Tajikistan    Turkmenistan    Ukraine    Uzbekistan         **Industry:**  ----- Industry -----    Advertising    Aerospace    Agribusiness    Automotive    Aviation    Chemicals    Computers    Construction    Consulting Services    Custom Rules    Consumer Goods    Defense Conversion     Distribution    Environment    Finance/Banking        Fishing    Forest Products    High-Value Electronics    Housing/Real Estate    Insurance    Laboratory    Legal Issues    Marketing    Medical/Pharmaceutical    Mining, Minerals    Oil & Gas    Power Generation    PrivatizationRegulations, TariffsSafety EquipmentScientific instrumentsSecurity    Taxation    Telecommunications    Textiles    Tourism/Hospitality        Transportation              **Name:**  ------ Names ------                 Anne Grey    Trevor Gunn    Ellen House    Juliana Kinal    Philip de Leon    Joan Morgan    Derek Nowek    Kelly Raftery    Judith Robinson    Karen Rubeiz    Tanya Shuster             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 441.560 Service budget requirements. ( a ) For the self-directed model with a service budget, a service budget must be developed and approved by the State based on the assessment of functional need and person-centered service plan and must include all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) The specific dollar amount an individual may use for Community First Choice services and supports.
( 2 ) The procedures for informing an individual of the amount of the service budget before the person-centered service plan is finalized.
( 3 ) The procedures for how an individual may adjust the budget including the following: ( i ) The procedures for an individual to freely adjust amounts allocated to specific services and supports within the approved service budget.
( ii ) The circumstances, if any, that may require prior approval by the State before a budget adjustment is made.
( 4 ) The circumstances, if any, that may require a change in the person-centered service plan.
( 5 ) The procedures that govern the determination of transition costs and other permissible services and supports as defined at § 441.520(b).
( 6 ) The procedures for an individual to request a fair hearing under Subpart E of this title if an individual's request for a budget adjustment is denied or the amount of the budget is reduced.
( b ) The budget methodology set forth by the State to determine an individual's service budget amount must: ( 1 ) Be objective and evidence-based utilizing valid, reliable cost data.
( 2 ) Be applied consistently to individuals.
( 3 ) Be included in the State plan.
( 4 ) Include a calculation of the expected cost of Community First Choice services and supports, if those services and supports are not self-directed.
( 5 ) Have a process in place that describes the following: ( i ) Any limits the State places on Community First Choice services and supports, and the basis for the limits.
( ii ) Any adjustments that are allowed and the basis for the adjustments.
( c ) The State must have procedures in place that will provide safeguards to individuals when the budgeted service amount is insufficient to meet the individual's needs.
( d ) The State must have a method of notifying individuals of the amount of any limit that applies to an individual's Community First Choice services and supports. Notice must be communicated in an accessible format, communicated in plain language, and needed auxiliary aids and services should be provided.
( e ) The budget may not restrict access to other medically necessary care and services furnished under the State plan and approved by the State but which are not included in the budget.
( f ) The State must have a procedure to adjust a budget when a reassessment indicates a change in an individual's medical condition, functional status, or living situation.