alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Morgan, Ruthw  

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 4:23 PM

To: Muellerleile, Caryn <Muellerleile.Caryn@epa.gov>; Jutras, Nathaniel <Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov>;

Brown, Stephanie N. <Brown.StephanieN@epa.gov>; Adams, Darryl <Adams.Darryl@epa.gov>

Cc: Shaw, Betsy <Shaw.Betsy@epa.gov>; Eagles, Tom <Eagles.Tom@epa.gov>; Goffman, Joseph

<Goffman.Joseph@epa.gov>; Saltman, Tamara <Saltman.Tamara@epa.gov>; Mcquilkin, Wendy

<Mcquilkin.Wendy@epa.gov>; Morgan, Ruthw <morgan.ruthw@epa.gov>; Jordan, Deborah

<Jordan.Deborah@epa.gov>; Cyran, Carissa <Cyran.Carissa@epa.gov>; Stewart, Lori

<Stewart.Lori@epa.gov>; Knapp, Kristien <Knapp.Kristien@epa.gov>; McCoy, Britney

<McCoy.Britney@epa.gov>; Millett, John <Millett.John@epa.gov>; Dennis, Allison

<Dennis.Allison@epa.gov>; Drinkard, Andrea <Drinkard.Andrea@epa.gov>; Hamilton, Sabrina

<Hamilton.Sabrina@epa.gov>; Faulkner, Martha <Faulkner.Martha@epa.gov>; Matthews, Barbara

<Matthews.Barbara@epa.gov>; Owens, Nicole <Owens.Nicole@epa.gov>; Pritchard, Eileen

<Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov>; Farquharson, Chenise <Farquharson.Chenise@epa.gov>; Lemon, Mollie

<Lemon.Mollie@epa.gov>; Friedman, Kristina <Friedman.Kristina@epa.gov>; Morris, Stephanie

<Morris.Stephanie@epa.gov>; Free, Laura <Free.Laura@epa.gov>; Brooks, Patricia

<Brooks.Patricia@epa.gov>

Subject: SAN 5873: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Change of

Listing Status and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products under the

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Cl

To Office of Policy for review and submittal to OMB.

01/20/2016 SAN#: 5873 CMS Control #:

 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New 

Listings of Substitutes; Change of Listing Status and 

Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam 

Products under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608's 

Venting Prohibition for Propane 

Tier: 3 RIN#:2060-AN33 OAQPS 

OP/Caryn Muellerleile, OP/Darryl Adams, OP/Nathaniel Jutras, OP/StephanieN Brown, OAR 

Correspondence Unit, OAR Reg Processing Team, OAP File 

NPRM is ready for OMB 

Comments: 60 day Expedited OMB review requested. 

OAP Reg Contact: Mollie Lemon - 202 343-9859 

OAP Mgmt. Level Reviewer: Kristina Friedman - 202 343-9281 

Return to: Ruth Morgan 

 564-1326, 6358 AR North
#### Bradley *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided May 11, 1911.

55 South. 429.)

*Intoxicating Liquors; Wrongful Sale; Evidence.*— Where the testimony showed that a witness went to the front of the store of the defendant, found the defendant in that part of the store, put a half dollar down on the counter near where defendant was, then walked through a partition to the rear end of the store and got a bottle of whisky from a barrel just inside the partition door and left the store by a side door without seeing the defendant get the money, and without seeing or speaking to the defendant after the money was put on the counter, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a conviction of the defendant for a sale of whisky.

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Harry Bradley was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Bankhead & Bankhead, and A. F. Fite, for appellant.

No brief came to the Reporter.

Robert C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

There was sufficient evidence of sale to support the verdict of guilt, and the action of the court in denying the motion for new trial is not here *revisable.*— Burridge *v. The*State, 113 Ala. 108; *Dorsey v. The State,*107 Ala. 157; *Fountain v. The State,*98 Ala. 40.

*215WALKER, P.J.

The evidence before the trial court was such as to warrant the inference of the defendant’s guilt of an offense charged in the indictment. The witness John Reed testified that he went to defendant’s store, laid a half dollar down on the counter up near the front, the defendant at the time being in that part of the building, then walked through a partition to the back end of the store, and got a bottle of whisky from a'barrel just inside the partition door, and left the store by the side door, without seeing the defendant get the money, and without seeing or speaking to the defendant after the money was put on the counter. This testimony afforded a ground for a legitimate inference, not a mere surmise or suspicion, that the defendant got the money for the bottle of whisky. To declare that more than this is necessary to be shown to prove a violation of a statute against the sale or other disposition of intoxicants would but facilitate evasions of the law. Frequently violators of such laws take enough notice of their existence to give their transactions the semblance of something different from ordinary sales in the way of business. Such laws cannot effectually be enforced if mere appearances are permitted to hide the results actually *consummated.*—Roberson *v. State,*100 Ala. 37, 14 South. 554.

Affirmed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Oman National Day

# 									Oman National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 18, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend my warmest congratulations to the people of Oman on the occasion of your National Day. Our warm and enduring friendship dates back to the earliest days of our republic. We value our history of cooperation, especially the work we undertake together to promote security, stability, peace, and prosperity in the region. We celebrate the success of the inaugural U.S.-Oman Strategic Dialogue earlier this year in Muscat, a testament to the strength, depth, and growth of our bilateral relationship in areas including clean energy, trade and investment, and educational and cultural ties between our people. As you celebrate your National Day, please accept my best wishes for your continued success.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOmanThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DESMON TERRILL BARNHILL, a/k/a T.B., a/k/a Terry, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:10-cr-00075-D-1; 7:14-cv-00024-D) 

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Desmon Terrill Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen Aubrey West, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Desmon Terrill Barnhill seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend 

judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Barnhill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### GARY PURZYCKI ET AL. *v.*TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ET AL.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15668.

*Theodore R. Tyma,*in support of the petition.

*Tracey C. Kammerer, Thomas J. Walsh, Jr., and Matthew M. Hausman,*in opposition.

Decided April 17, 1997

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 359 (AC 15166), is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Was the trial court correct in setting aside the verdict on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the plaintiff child was subject to imminent harm, an exception to a municipal employee’s immunity from liability when performing discretionary acts?”
§ 488.855 Directed in-service training. ( a ) *Application.* CMS may require the staff of an HHA to attend in-service training program(s) if CMS determines that— ( 1 ) The HHA has deficiencies that indicate noncompliance;
( 2 ) Education is likely to correct the deficiencies; and
( 3 ) The programs are conducted by established centers of health education and training or consultants with background in education and training with Medicare Home Health Providers, or as deemed acceptable by CMS and/or the State (by review of a copy of curriculum vitas and/or resumes/references to determine the educator's qualifications).
( b ) *Procedures* — ( 1 ) *Action following training.* After the HHA staff has received in-service training, if the HHA has not achieved compliance, CMS may impose one or more other sanctions specified in § 488.820.
( 2 ) *Payment.* The HHA pays for the directed in-service training for its staff.
HomeRichard J. Sullivan

# 									Richard J. Sullivan							

## **Richard J. Sullivan**

#### **Managing Director for Program Development, Coordination & Support**

Rick Sullivan is the Managing Director of Project Development, Coordination, and Support of the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO).  Mr. Sullivan is responsible for overseeing all facets of the design, engineering, standards, technical support, project management and cost management of over $20B of worldwide diplomatic capital construction projects and in support of all U.S diplomatic missions. 

Mr. Sullivan is a former US Naval Officer and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.  He has over 20 years’ experience in the design and construction industry.  At OBO, he has been a staff mechanical engineer, the Mechanical Engineering Division Chief, and the Design and Enginering Office Director.  He has been recognized with numerous awards for leadership and superior performance at the Department of State. 

Back to Top
#### Henrietta Raschen, Appellant, *v.*William Norton, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the. Sixth Municipal Court, bor•ough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendant, dismissing the •complaint, with costs.

Rabe *&*Reliar, for appellant.

John O’Connell, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The complaint was dismissed at the close of the ■defendant’s case. The evidence offered by the plaintiff established the following state of facts, viz.: The defendant was engaged in laying a pneumatic tube or pipe on Fourth avenue. Trenches were dug in the street for that purpose, and foot-bridges were used in crossing these trenches. On or about January 28, Í898, "the plaintiff walked across one of these foot-bridges. Her skirt was caught upon the nails, which protruded from some plank or board used by defendant in or about the bridge, and a hole was thereby tom in her skirt, and the skirt became, in consequence "thereof, useless to the plaintiff, and she was thereby damaged to the extent of $50. These nails were not sufficiently prominent "to attract the attention of an ordinarily prudent and careful per•son crossing the bridge, and the plaintiff, not seeing the nails, and relying upon a presumption that defendant had provided a suit- ■ able bridge for the public to cross over the said trenches so dug by defendant, walked over the bridge and thus met the injury •of which she complains. The plaintiff is corroborated by two *843ladies, who appear to he perfectly disinterested witnesses, one of whom crossed the bridge just before plaintiff and the other just after her. The witnesses for the defendant are his own employees, Avho have every interest to exculpate themselves from any imputation of negligence. Their testimony should, therefore, have been critically scrutinized and received with caution. See Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co., 134 N. Y. 422. Their evidence, moreover, is purely of a negative character, as they practically confine themselves to the statement that they did not observe the nails, while it does not satisfactorily appear that they made any very close examination of the bridge in question.

We are of the opinion that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, and should not stand. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.'

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, Avith costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 423.774 Eligibility determinations, redeterminations, and applications. ( a ) *Determinations of whether an individual is a subsidy eligible individual.* Determinations of eligibility for subsidies under this subpart are made by the State under its State plan under title XIX of the Act if the individual applies with the Medicaid agency, or if the individual applies with the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with the requirements of section 1860D-14(a)(3) of the Act.
( b ) *Effective date of initial eligibility determinations.* Initial eligibility determinations are effective beginning with the first day of the month in which the individual applies, but no earlier than January 1, 2006 and remain in effect for a period not to exceed 1 year.
( c ) *Redeterminations and appeals of low-income subsidy eligibility* — ( 1 ) *Redeterminations and appeals of low-income subsidy eligibility determinations—eligibility determinations made by States.* Redeterminations and appeals of low-income subsidy eligibility determinations by States must be made in the same manner and frequency as the redeterminations and appeals are made under the State's plan.
( 2 ) *Redeterminations and appeals of low-income subsidy eligibility—eligibility determinations made by Commissioner of Social Security.* Redeterminations and appeals of eligibility determinations made by the Commissioner will be made in the manner specified by the Commissioner of Social Security.
( d ) *Application requirements.* ( 1 ) In order for applications for the subsidies under this subpart to be considered complete, applicants or personal representatives applying on the individual's behalf, must— ( i ) Complete all required elements of the application;
( ii ) Provide any statements from financial institutions, as requested, to support information in the application; and
( iii ) Certify, under penalty of perjury or similar sanction for false statements, as to the accuracy of the information provided on the application form.
( 2 ) *Multiple applications.* If the individual or his or her personal representative has previously filed an application with the State or SSA which seeks subsidy eligibility for any portion of the eligibility period covered by a subsequent application, the later application is void if the individual has received a positive subsidy determination on that earlier application from the State or SSA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,914
<SECURITIES>                                 8,172,020
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,185,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   854,989
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (2,536,311)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               164,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (45,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,655,811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order 2011-4 -3

 Correction 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 Issued by the Department of Transportation

 on the 5th day of April 2011

Flythere4less.com OST-2011-0003

Served April 5, 2011

Violations of 14 CFR Part 257 and

 49 U.S.C. § 41712

CORRECTION

On April 5, 2011, Order 2001-4-3 was issued against Flythere4less. This Order contained 

a clerical error with respect to the payment schedule contained in ordering paragraph 5. 

This correction revises ordering paragraph 5 to include the correct dates on which

Flythere4less must make civil penalty payments under the Order. 

This Correction is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR 1.57a and 14 CFR 

385.15.

In consideration of the foregoing, ordering paragraph 5 of Order 2011-4-3 is amended to 

read as follows:

5. We assess Flythere4less.com $40,000 in compromise of civil penalties that might 

otherwise be assessed for the violations described above. Of this total penalty

amount, $20,000 shall be due and payable as follows: $5,000 shall be due and 

payable within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order; three payments of 

$5,000 each shall be due and payable on June 1, 2011, July 1, 2011, and August 1, 

2011. The remaining portion of the civil penalty amount, $20,000 shall become 

due and payable if, within one year of the date of issuance of this order, 

Flythere4less.com violates this order’s cease and desist provisions or fails to 

comply with this order’s payment provisions, in which case, Flythere4less.com may

become subject to additional enforcement action for violation of the order; and 

BY:

ROSALIND A. KNAPP

Deputy General Counsel

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

www.regulations.gov
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.696 Reopening of a contract determination or decision of a hearing officer or the Administrator. ( a ) *Contract determination.* CMS may reopen and revise an initial determination upon its own motion.
( b ) *Decision of hearing officer.* A decision of a hearing officer that is unfavorable to any party and is otherwise final may be reopened and revised by the hearing officer upon the officer's own motion within one year of the notice of the hearing decision. Another hearing officer designated by CMS may reopen and revise the decision if the hearing officer who issued the decision is unavailable.
( c ) *Decision of Administrator.* A decision by the Administrator that is otherwise final may be reopened and revised by the Administrator upon the Administrator's own motion within one year of the notice of the Administrator's decision.
( d ) *Notices.* ( 1 ) The notice of reopening and of any revisions following the reopening is mailed to the parties.
( 2 ) The notice of revision specifies the reasons for revisions.
[63 FR 35113, June 26, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 68725, Dec. 5, 2007; 75 FR 19814, Apr. 15, 2010]
#### Jane NICOLICH v. SCHWEGMANN BROTHERS GIANT SUPERMARKETS, INC.

No. 65088.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Schwegmann Brothers Giant Supermarkets, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. No. 10116.

Writ denied.
§ 480.104 Procedures for disclosure by a QIO. ( a ) *Notice to accompany disclosure.* ( 1 ) Any disclosure of information under the authority of this subpart is subject to the requirements in § 480.105 relating to the providing of a notice of the disclosure.
( 2 ) Disclosure of confidential information made under the authority of this subpart, except as provided in § 480.106, must be accompanied by a written statement informing the beneficiary that the information may not be redisclosed except as provided under § 480.107 that limits redisclosure.
( b ) *QIO interpretations.* A QIO may provide a statement of comment, analysis, or interpretation to guide the beneficiary in using information disclosed under this subpart.
( c ) *Fees.* A QIO may charge a fee to cover the cost of providing information authorized under this subpart. These fees may not exceed the amount necessary to recover the cost to the QIO for providing the information.
( d ) *Format for disclosure of public information.* A QIO is required to disclose public information (§ 480.120(a)(6)) only in the form in which it is acquired by the QIO or in the form in which it is maintained for QIO use.
( e ) *Medicare provider number.* A QIO must include the provider identification number assigned by the Medicare program on information that CMS requests.
[50 FR 15359, Apr. 17, 1985. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 49267, Aug. 11, 2004]
#### In the Matter of L. A. “Red” LLOYD, Tommy Huff, Camille Adam Gomez, Plaquemines Parish Commission Council, Gerald D. Kimble, Stephen C. Braud, Nick Jackson and Robert McBride.

No. 66886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re L. A. “Red” Lloyd et al., applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus prohibition and stay order. Parish of Plaque-mines. Nos. 56-818, 57,373, 57,449, 57-450, 57-478, 57,479.

Granted in part; denied in part. Assignments one (1) through three (3) have no merit. As to assignment number four (4) (contempt), inasmuch as there was no order for movers to appear on February 14th, merely a fixing of a hearing on the motion to quash, the judge’s order directing movers to show cause is set aside.
§ 488.1220 Available remedies. The following enforcement remedies are available instead of, or in addition to, termination of the hospice program's provider agreement under § 489.53 of this chapter, for a period not to exceed 6 months: ( a ) Civil money penalties.
( b ) Suspension of payment for all new patient admissions.
( c ) Temporary management of the hospice program.
( d ) Directed plan of correction.
( e ) Directed in-service training.