alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Devonian rugose corals from northern Maine

By: William Albert Oliver Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1111A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 31, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 31, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19I0285. UNISON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH v. MADISON ROBERTS.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SUV2018000181
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.990 Provider and supplier screening, oversight, and reporting requirements. The following provisions and their corresponding regulations apply to a State under title XXI of the Act, in the same manner as these provisions and regulations apply to a State under title XIX of the Act: ( a ) Section 455.107.
( b ) Part 455, subpart E, of this chapter.
( c ) Sections 1902(a)(77) and 1902(kk) of the Act pertaining to provider and supplier screening, oversight, and reporting requirements.
[76 FR 5970, Feb. 2, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 47857, Sept. 10, 2019]
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Programs
- Regional Offices
- Notes and Notices
- Contact Us
- OFM COVID-19 Resources

HomeBureaus & Offices > Under Secretary for Management...Office of Foreign Missions

# Office of Foreign Missions

## 				Our Mission			

					The Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) is responsible for implementing the Secretary’s mandate under the Foreign Missions Act (22 U.S.C. 4301-4316) to facilitate secure and efficient operations of U.S. missions abroad, and of foreign missions and international organizations in the United States.  OFM has four missions: employment of reciprocity to ensure equitable treatment for U.S. diplomatic and consular missions abroad and their personnel; regulation of the activities of foreign missions in the U.S. in a manner that will protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the U.S.; protection of the U.S. public from abuses of privileges and immunities by members of the foreign missions; and provision of service and assistance to the foreign mission community in the U.S. to assure appropriate privileges, benefits, and services in accordance with relevant legal obligations and principles of reciprocity.				

Director

Ambassador Rebecca E. Gonzales

							Follow Us:																			Facebook

#### 				Diplomatic Note 21-1264: Accreditation Policy Handbook										 (516 KB)

 

#### 				Diplomatic Note 21-1262: Changes to Department's Accreditation Policy - Duration of Accreditation										 (100 KB)

 

#### 				Notice: New Mailbox for Foreign Mission Support Unit										 (163 KB)

 

#### 				Diplomatic Note 24-26: Drivers License Vision Exam Policy Changes										 (100 KB)

 

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffrey ROSS.

No. 65091.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Jeffrey Ross, applying for writs of certiorari (review) prohibition, mandamus, and for a stay order. Parish of Grant. No. 33,262.

Writ denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1840 

To restore and make permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts 

received under qualified group legal services plans and to increase the 

maximum amount of the exclusion. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. 

NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. RYAN of 

Wisconsin, Mr. CLAY, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. 

JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To restore and make permanent the exclusion from gross 

income for amounts received under qualified group legal 

services plans and to increase the maximum amount 

of the exclusion. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1840 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER 

2 QUALIFIED GROUP LEGAL SERVICES PLANS 

3 RESTORED AND MADE PERMANENT. 

4 (a) INCREASE OF EXCLUSION.—Subsection (a) of 

5 section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat6 ing to exclusion by employee for contributions and legal 

7 services provided by employer) is amended by striking the 

8 last sentence. 

9 (b) RESTORATION AND PERMANENCE OF EXCLU10 SION.—Section 120 of such Code (relating to amounts re11 ceived under qualified group legal services plans) is 

12 amended by striking subsection (e) and by redesignating 

13 subsection (f) as subsection (e). 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Ralph BEARDEN, Jr., Petitioner, v. ARMOR MOBILE HOME MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF GEORGIA, Respondent.

No. 47041.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 19, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 307 So.2d 866.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Third U.S.-Suriname Strategic Dialogue

# 									Joint Statement on Third U.S.-Suriname Strategic Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 2, 2024

*The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Suriname on the occasion of the Third U.S.-Suriname Strategic Dialogue.*

*Begin text:*

In the spirit of strengthening bilateral relations, the United States and Suriname held the Third Strategic Dialogue on January 31 in Washington, DC.  Senior officials from both countries explored ways to promote inclusive growth, foster innovation, combat climate change, and collaborate on capacity building and training.  The dialogue underscored the urgent need to address the climate crisis, accelerate the clean energy transition, promote sustainable development, foster economic resilience, and strengthen democracy.  In the area of security cooperation, the United States and Suriname support completing negotiations on the Air Intercept Assistance Agreement.  Both sides discussed other options to enhance information sharing, including through a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and a Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement.

The United States supports Suriname’s efforts to address shared security challenges, including transnational organized crime, narcotics and human trafficking, money laundering, and corruption by enhancing the capacity of police and security services, including through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI).  The United States commends Suriname for its endorsement of the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection; both sides reaffirmed their commitment to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration in the Americas.

We welcome Suriname to the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, a White House priority launched in September 2023.  The Partnership is a platform for Atlantic coastal states to work together to address common challenges to realize interconnected goals of advancing a peaceful, stable, prosperous, open, safe, and cooperative Atlantic region, and promote a healthy, sustainable, and resilient Atlantic for generations to come.

*End text.*

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsClimate ChangeDemocracyEconomic AffairsEnergyOffice of the SpokespersonSecurityStrategic DialogueSuriname

Back to Top
# C_2006055EN.01005701.xml

| 7.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/57

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4118 — CVC/KKR/AVR)

(2006/C 55/21)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4118. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4118. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Simon Christiansen, Respondent, *v.*Louis B. Mendham, Impleaded, etc., Appellants.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

March, 1899.)

Action against a surety in replevin — He cannot attack the replevin judgment, while it stands.

In an action upon an undertaking given by a plaintiff to a defendant upon the former’s replevin of chattels, a defendant surety cannot, while it stands, attack the judgment in replevin and insist that the court had no power to award in that action the possession of the chattels, or damages for special property in them, to the defendant therein because he had not duly served upon the plaintiff’s attorney therein a notice, under section 1725 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that he demanded judgment for the return of the chattels or their value, either with or without damages for detention.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Action on an undertaking in replevin given by the plaintiff.

Franklin Bien for appellants.

Harris *&*Goldfarb (Abraham Goldfarb and Abraham I. Spiro, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The case was tried by the court, without a jury, upon the following agreed state of facts.

> First: That in this action, the defendant Harris Mendham was never served with the summons and complaint, either personally or otherwise.

> Second: That in the action in which the undertaking in suit was given, being the action of McOobb against Christianson, was one in replevin, in which the plaintiff therein replevined certain property which always remained and still remains in him; that in the replevin action the defendant, who is the present plaintiff, failed to comply with section 1125 of the Code, in that he did not, within the time allowed to him for the service of a notice of trial, serve upon the plaintiff’s attorney a notice that he demanded judgment, for the return of the chattel or its cash value either with or with- ¡ out damages for the detention thereof, and that he failed to furnish! *663the court upon the trial of such action with a copy of such notice together with proof of the service thereof. The judgment-roll in that action was put in evidence and both sides rested.

The appellant contends that, in the former action of McCobb against Christianson, the court had no jurisdiction to award the possession of the chattels to the defendant, or damages for his ■special property therein, because the defendant therein had not ■served the notice required by section 1725 of the Code.

The court had acquired jurisdiction, in that action, of the parties and of the subject-matter.

The judgment, therefore, is valid until reversed or vacated, and the surety will not be heard to attack it in an action to enforce the provisions of the undertaking while it remains valid against his principal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Conlan and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11023 Conference Calendar

NORTH AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHEILA HENDRIX, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 96-CV-2203-T

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sheila Hendrix appeals the order of the district court remanding a state law forcible detainer action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The remand order may not be reviewed on appeal because it has been issued pursuant to § 1447(c). See Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P. , 97 F.3d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1996). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v.No. 96-11023 - 2 - King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
DISMISSED.
§ 436.201 Individuals included in optional groups. ( a ) The agency may choose to cover as optional categorically needy any group or groups of the following individuals who are not receiving cash assistance and who meet the appropriate eligibility criteria for groups specified in the separate sections of this subpart: ( 1 ) Aged individuals (65 years of age or older);
( 2 ) Blind individuals (as defined in § 436.530);
( 3 ) Disabled individuals (as defined in § 436.541);
( 4 ) Individuals under age 21 (or, at State option), under age 20, 19, or 18) or reasonable classifications of these individuals;
( 5 ) Specified relatives under section 406(b)(1) of the Act who have in their care an individual who is determined to be dependent) as specified in § 436.510;
( 6 ) Pregnant women; and
( 7 ) Essential spouses specified under § 436.230.
( b ) If the agency provides Medicaid to any individual in an optional group specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the agency must provide Medicaid to all individuals who apply and are found eligible to be members of that group.
[58 FR 4934, Jan. 19, 1993]
§ 426.476 Board review of an ALJ's decision. ( a ) *Review steps.* If the Board determines that an appeal is acceptable, the Board— ( 1 ) Permits the party that did not file the appeal an opportunity to respond to the appeal;
( 2 ) Hears oral argument (which may be held by telephone) if the Board determines that oral argument would be helpful to the Board's review of the ALJ decision;
( 3 ) Reviews the LCD review record and the parties' arguments; and
( 4 ) Issues a written decision either upholding, modifying, or reversing the ALJ decision, or remanding the case to the ALJ for further proceedings.
( b ) *Standard of review* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The Board determines whether the ALJ decision contains any material error, including any failure to properly apply the reasonableness standard.
( 2 ) If the ALJ erred in determining that the contractor's record was complete and adequate to support the validity of the LCD, the Board remands the case to the ALJ for discovery and the taking of evidence.
( 3 ) If a party alleges a prejudicial error of procedure, and the Board determines that such an error was made, the Board may remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the Board decision or may take other appropriate steps to correct the procedural error.
( 4 ) Harmless error is not a basis for reversing an ALJ decision.
( c ) *Scope of review.* In reaching its conclusions, the Board is bound by applicable laws, regulations, and NCDs.
( d ) *Dismissal as moot.* The Board dismisses an appeal by an aggrieved party of an ALJ decision finding that an LCD was valid if the contractor notifies the Board that it has retired the LCD or revised the LCD to remove the LCD provision in question.
#### ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN OIL EXPLORATION, INC., Appellee.

No. WW-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Richard Smoak of Isler, Brown, Smoak & Watson, Panama City, for appellant.

Bill R. Hutto of Fitzpatrick, Syfrett & Hutto, Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on the issue of *1229liability under a contract for the sale of oil and gas leases on lands owned by appellant in Gulf and Liberty Counties. We affirm.

The thrust of appellant’s argument is that the parties did not know the exact amount and description of the lands involved, therefore no agreement was proved on a critical part of the contract. Appellant argues that a material factual issue was in dispute and summary judgment was improper.

We find no merit in those contentions. The record shows that the contract related to oil leases of all lands owned by appellant in Gulf and Liberty counties. The exact determination of acreage was to be made from the public records in the two counties. The memoranda between the parties acknowledging the contract confirmed this. We find no material issue in dispute and hold that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The order is accordingly affirmed.

WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
# C_2006074EN.01001202.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/12

---

Action brought on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-71/06)

(2006/C 74/23)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Visaggio, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/85/EC (1) of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC (2) and Decisions 89/531/EEC (3) and 91/665/EEC (4) and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (5) or rather by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93(1) of Directive 2003/85/EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/85/EC (1) of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC (2) and Decisions 89/531/EEC (3) and 91/665/EEC (4) and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (5) or rather by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93(1) of Directive 2003/85/EC;

1

2

3

4

5

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the implementation of the directive expired on 30 June 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 306 of 22.11.2003, p. 1

1

(2)  OJ L 315 of 26.11.1985, p. 11

2

(3)  OJ L 279 of 28.9.1989, p. 32

3

(4)  OJ L 368 of 31.12.1991, p. 19

4

(5)  OJ L 268 of 14.9.1992, p. 1

5

---