alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 96-30575

_____________________________

VYRON L. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGIA COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, ET AL.

Defendants,

INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

( 95-CV-267 )

_________________________________________________________________

December 26, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Vyron Brown brought this action for damages under a bid bond

which Integon had issued to Brown so that Brown could bid on a

government contract. Because Brown owed Integon approximately

$3500.00, guaranteed by a promissory note, Integon refused to issue

further bonds necessary for Brown to begin work. Integon
counterclaimed on the promissory note and moved for summary

judgment on Brown’s contract claim. The district court granted

summary judgment dismissing Brown’s contract claim. But, neither

the Order Granting Summary Judgment nor the ensuing Judgment

disposed of Integon’s counterclaim. The district court made no

FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) “express determination that there is no just

reason for delay”, allowing appeal of the contract claim before the

counterclaim was addressed.

In the absence of an express determination that there is no

just reason for delay, the dismissal of complaint by summary

judgment, which does not dispose of a counterclaim, does not

constitute an appealable final order. Belmont Place Associates v.

Blyth, Eastman, Dillon and Co., Inc, 565 F.2d 1322, 1322-23 (5th

Cir. 1978); see also Johnson v. McDole, 526 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.

1976). The summary judgment order acknowledges Integon’s

counterclaim, but does not dispose of it. We therefore have no

jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED
#### Rhoads v. Rhoads

*William L. Sunday,*for plaintiff.

May 16, 1955.

Shughart, P. J.,

The complaint in this divorce action was served by publication and a copy of the notice sent to defendant by the sheriff, pursuant to R. C. P. 1124 (b), addressed to addressee only, was returned unclaimed. Notice of the hearing before the master and of the filing of the master’s report sent to defendant, addressed to addressee only, were undelivered. It thus appears that although plaintiff and defendant have five children, most of whom are adults *676and married, no direct notification of this proceedings ever reached defendant.

In the case of Hartzell v. Hartzell, 82 D. & C. 104, we stated that wherever notice by registered mail did not provide for delivery to addressee only, such communications should not be so restricted. We set forth the reasons for this requirement at length in that opinion and will not restate them here. In the instant situation, it is quite likely that a notice sent by registered mail, and not restricted to addressee only, to the address in Miami, or to the address of the alleged boy friend’s mother would have reached defendant. We also think it is quite likely that some of the children, if they were contacted by plaintiff, could give an address where defendant could be reached by mail.

It is always desirable that an individual have direct information of litigation affecting his rights. Certanly this is true of a divorce action. See Smith v. Smith, 1 Cumb. L. J. 35.

To give defendant an opportunity to have her day in court we will direct that a rule issue to show cause why a final decree in divorce should not be entered.

And now, May 16, 1955, at 4 p.m. ... a rule is issued upon defendant, Mary K. Rhoads, to show cause why a final decree in divorce should not be granted in this matter; copy of this rule to be served upon defendant by registered mail, addressed to her at such address or addresses as are likely to be received by her, or by some one in her behalf.

Rule to be returnable 10 days after service.

When the time for filing an answer shall have elapsed, the matter may again be submitted to the court for final action.

The arrangements for the service of the rule and filing of the proofs of service to be effected by counsel for plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,322,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    306,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,629,311
<PP&E>                                         800,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                 575,725
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,854,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          263,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    859,167
<COMMON>                                       904,554
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,827,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,854,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               417,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (43,601)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (373,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (373,596)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
§ 486.310 Changes in control or ownership or service area. ( a ) *OPO requirements.* ( 1 ) A designated OPO considering a change in control (see § 413.17(b)(3)) or ownership or in its service area must notify CMS before putting it into effect. This notification is required to ensure that the OPO, if changed, will continue to satisfy Medicare and Medicaid requirements. The merger of one OPO into another or the consolidation of one OPO with another is considered a change in control or ownership.
( 2 ) A designated OPO considering a change in its service area must obtain prior CMS approval. In the case of a service area change that results from a change of control or ownership due to merger or consolidation, the OPOs must resubmit the information required in an application for designation. The OPO must provide information specific to the board structure of the new organization, as well as operating budgets, financial information, and other written documentation CMS determines to be necessary for designation.
( b ) *CMS requirements.* ( 1 ) If CMS finds that the OPO has changed to such an extent that it no longer satisfies the requirements for OPO designation, CMS may de-certify the OPO and declare the OPO's service area to be an open area. An OPO may appeal such a de-certification as set forth in § 486.314. The OPO's service area is not opened for competition until the conclusion of the administrative appeals process.
( 2 ) If CMS finds that the changed OPO continues to satisfy the requirements for OPO designation, the period of designation of the changed OPO is the remaining portion of the 4-year term of the OPO that was reorganized. If more than one designated OPO is involved in the reorganization, the remaining designation term is the longest of the remaining periods unless CMS determines that a shorter period is in the best interest of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The changed OPO must continue to meet the requirements for certification at § 486.303 throughout the remaining period.
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Mahoney, Patricia – Central African Republic – August 2021

# 									Mahoney, Patricia – Central African Republic – August 2021							

Certificate of Competency

August 3, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  Central African Republic

CANDIDATE:     Patricia Mahoney

Patricia Mahoney, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Benin. Previously she was an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Department of State and the Office Director, Office of Mainland Southeast Asia also in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.  Earlier, Ambassador Mahoney was the Deputy Chief of Mission of the American Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, and before that the Deputy Chief of Mission of the American Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.  She also served as Director for South Asia at the National Security Council. Ambassador Mahoney’s strong background in African Affairs, her demonstrated success as a leader who builds effective and cohesive teams and her keen understanding of the policy making process make her a well-qualified candidate for Ambassador to the Central African Republic.

Among her other assignments, Ambassador Mahoney was the Deputy Director, Office of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh Affairs, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, the Political Chief, U.S. Embassy, Colombo, Sri Lanka and the Political and Economic Chief, U.S. Embassy Kathmandu, Nepal. She also represented the State Department as a student at the National War College.

Ambassador Mahoney earned her B.A. cum laude from Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1981 and her M.A. from the University of Hawaii in 1988.  She is a Distinguished Graduate of the National War College in Washington, D.C., receiving an M.S. degree in 2009.  She speaks French, Thai, Nepali and Lao.  She is the recipient of multiple State Department performance awards.

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Exhibit
      32.1





**Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
      Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
      period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
      of
      operations as of and for the periods covered therein.







/s/
                  William G. Smith, Jr.William
                  G. Smith, Jr.Chairman,
                  President, andChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 Date:  November
        9, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, 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.
No. 27,220.

#### C. M. Day, *Appellee,*v. The First National Bank, *Appellant.*

MEMORANDUM DENYING A REHEARING.

Appeal from Mitchell district court; William R. Mitchell, judge.

Opinion denying a rehearing filed May 7, 1927.

(For original opinion of affirmance see *ante,*p. 151.)

*Frank A. Lutz*and *Amzie E. Jordan,*both of Beloit, for the appellant.

*R. M. Anderson,*of Beloit, for the appellee.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 629 n. 84.

The opinion of the court was debA^ered by

Burch, J.:

In the opinion the court said that in April following the negotiations out of which the litigation arose, Carroll sold the land which he offered to trade for the bakery, the name of the purchaser was inserted in the deed, the grantors in the deed acknowledged it, and the deed was delivered to the purchaser. Defendant challenges the correctness of this statement of facts, and goes so far as to say there was absolutely no evidence, and nothing in the record, to substantiate the statement.

Defendant quotes from Carroll’s testimony as follows: “The *453name of the grantor was acknowledged, wasn’t it? Why, yes, sir, sure.”

The court did not overlook this testimony. It appeared in the counter abstract in the following connection:

> “Cross-examination [of Carroll]: After stating lie didn’t know what became of the deed, continuing, 'We traded it off some time, but where it is now, I do not know.’

> “Reexamination: Now, when you say acknowledged, your name wasn’t written in? No, sir.

> “The name of the grantor was acknowledged, wasn’t it? Why, yes, sir, sure.”

Before that, Carroll had testified as follows:

> “Q. Will ask if the deed was acknowledged? A. I don’t think so; no, sir.”

In the course of his testimony Carroll testified twice that he delivered the same deed to the purchaser to whom he sold the land, and the abstract of title disclosed that the deed was acknowledged on April 15, 1923, three months after the trade for the bakery fell through. Day was asked if the grantor’s name was on the deed which Carroll showed him, and he said it was. That was apparently the subject of inquiry in the examination of Carroll first quoted above, and in view of all the testimony, it is perfectly clear the deed to Carroll’s purchaser was the deed Carroll expected to use in the trade with Day.

The petition for rehearing states that the subject of minimizing damages was raised by defendant in seven specified ways in the district court. This court is bound by the record, and the following is all that defendant’s abstract discloses which might by any possibility refer to the subject:

> “The defendant filed a list of requested instructions, all of which were refused. The requested instructions included that under the pleadings and evidence in this case no loss of profits were recoverable.”

The defendant’s brief did not mention the subject, and further discussion of it is obviously unnecessary.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
#### § 489.73 Effect of conditions of payment.

If a Surety has paid an amount to CMS on the basis of liability incurred under a bond obtained by an HHA under this subpart F, and CMS subsequently collects from the HHA, in whole or in part, on such unpaid claim, civil money penalty, or assessment that was the basis for the Surety's liability, CMS reimburses the Surety such amount as CMS collected from the HHA, up to the amount paid by the Surety to CMS, provided the Surety has no other liability to CMS under the bond.

(Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh))

[63 FR 29656, June 1, 1998]
- Bureau Home
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Bilateral Relations Fact Sheets
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs...Leadership – Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

# 						Leadership – Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs					

8											Items									

          -  							O'Brien, James						Assistant Secretary Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Kim, Yuri						Principal Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Coulter, Sonata						Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Escobar, Gabriel						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Huck, Joshua						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Jones, Douglas D.						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Ramos, Jacqueline						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
          -  							Smith, Christopher W.						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 

Back to Top
#### § 436.100 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for coverage of categorically needy individuals.
HomeSection I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis...Long Description for the FY 2019 Trend in Total Budgetary Resources Bar Chart

# 									Long Description for the FY 2019 Trend in Total Budgetary Resources Bar Chart							

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services

January 17, 2020

Bar chart summarizing the trend in total budgetary resources for 2014-2019. Values are as follows:

**FY 2014:**

Appropriations: $30.4 billion.Offsetting Collections: $11.1 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $23.0 billion.Total: $64.5 billion.

**FY 2015:**

Appropriations: $31.2 billion.Offsetting Collections: $12.0 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $22.7 billion.Total: $65.9 billion.

**FY 2016:**

Appropriations: $31.8 billion.Offsetting Collections: $12.5 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $25.0 billion.Total: $69.3 billion.

**FY 2017:**

Appropriations: $34.0 billion.Offsetting Collections: $11.8 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $25.2 billion.Total: $71.0 billion.

**FY 2018:**

Appropriations: $32.1 billion.Offsetting Collections: $11.4 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $28.8 billion.Total: $72.3 billion.

**FY 2019:**

Appropriations: $35.8 billion.Offsetting Collections: $8.0 billion.Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net: $31.1 billion.Total: $74.9 billion.

Back to Text

Back to Top
**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 Quarterly Report of Auto Underwriters of America, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Dean Antonis, as Principal 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, to the best of his knowledge,
      that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                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.





/s/
                Dean AntonisDean
                AntonisTreasurer
                (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
                November 21, 2006











This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
- U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council
- About Us
- Biographies
- Events
- Initiatives
- Remarks and Releases

HomeInitiatives...U.S.-Pakistan Symposium on Women in the Economy

# U.S.-Pakistan Symposium on Women in the Economy

The U.S.-Pakistan Symposium on Women in the Economy is an initiative of the U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council and the Bush School of Government and Public Service that took place on November 13-14, 2019 at Texas A&M University. Opening speakers included President of Texas A&M University and Council Co-Chair Michael Young, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Pakistan Affairs at the U.S. Department of State Ervin Massinga, and Deputy Chief of Mission, the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Washington, D.C. Ubaid Nizamani.

The symposium served as a platform through which diverse stakeholders from the United States and Pakistan could exchange views and proposals for advancing women in the economy in Pakistan on issues ranging from financial inclusion, women in the media and the healthcare sector, and the empowerment of adolescent girls.   Keynote speaker of the Symposium, Dr. Sania Nishtar, Special Assistant to Prime Minister Khan for social protection and poverty alleviation, joined the proceedings by video conference, highlighting the Government of Pakistan’s Ehsaas (Empathy) initiative that aims to streamline and modernize the delivery of social welfare and poverty alleviation assistance in Pakistan. 

The symposium and opening dinner drew 90 leaders in civil society, the private sector and Texas A&M faculty, including representatives from the U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council, WEConnect International, the Malala Fund, STEMconnector, Invest2Innovate, Excelerate Energy, the U.S.-Pakistan Business Council, Hum Network Ltd., the Johns Hopkins Women’s Health Center, the American Pakistan Business Development Forum, Developments in Literacy, Houston Community College, Texas A&M Community Foundation, and S&P Global.  Representatives from the Pakistan Desk and the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues at the State Department also attended.

The symposium advances a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Pakistan to promote women’s economic inclusion and address barriers to women in the economy in Pakistan.  

A full agenda is enclosed [98 KB].

 

Back to Top