alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 430.76 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) *CMS and the State.* CMS and the State are parties to the hearing.
( b ) *Other individuals* — ( 1 ) *Basis for participation.* Other individuals or groups may be recognized as parties if the issues to be considered at the hearing have caused them injury and their interest is within the zone of interests to be protected by the governing Federal statute.
( 2 ) *Petition for participation.* Any individual or group wishing to participate as a party must, within 15 days after notice of hearing is published in the Federal Register, file with the CMS Docket Clerk, a petition that concisely states— ( i ) Petitioner's interest in the proceeding;
( ii ) Who will appear for petitioner;
( iii ) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( iv ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses. The petitioner must also serve a copy of the petition on each party of record at that time.
( 3 ) *Comments on petition.* Any party may, within 5 days of receipt of the copy of the petition, file comments on it.
( 4 ) *Action on petition.* ( i ) The presiding officer promptly determines whether each petitioner has the requisite interest in the proceedings and approves or denies participation accordingly.
( ii ) If petitions are made by more than one individual or group with common interests, the presiding officer may— ( A ) Request all those petitioners to designate a single representative; or
( B ) Recognize one or more of those petitioners to represent all of them.
( iii ) The presiding officer gives each petitioner written notice of the decision and, if the decision is to deny, briefly states the grounds for denial.
( c ) *Amicus curiae (friend of the court)* — ( 1 ) *Petition for participation.* Any person or organization that wishes to participate as amicus curiae must, before the hearing begins, file with the CMS Docket Clerk, a petition that concisely states— ( i ) The petitioners' interest in the hearing;
( ii ) Who will represent the petitioner; and
( iii ) The issues on which the petitioner intends to present argument.
( 2 ) *Action on amicus curiae petition.* The presiding officer may grant the petition if he or she finds that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, that such participation will not unduly delay the outcome and may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the issues.
( 3 ) *Nature of amicus participation.* An amicus curiae is not a party to the hearing but may participate by— ( i ) Submitting a written statement of position to the presiding officer before the beginning of the hearing;
( ii ) Presenting a brief oral statement at the hearing, at the point in the proceedings specified by the presiding officer; and
( iii ) Submitting a brief or written statement when the parties submit briefs.
The amicus curiae must serve copies of any briefs or written statements on all parties.
Order filed September 25, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00631

- CV

____________ THE TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION , Appellant

V.
THE HARRIS COUNTY AP PRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court Ha rris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 34688



### O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 5, 2014. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due Au gust 4, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 ( a )(1)

. Appellant filed i t s notice of appeal one day late on August 5,
2014

. A m otion for extension of time is “necessarily implied” when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburg t v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to filethe notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated

to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late fil ing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd.
, 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App.
P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
§ 456.520 Definitions. As used in §§ 456.521 through 456.525 of this subpart: *Available physician or other professional personnel* means an individual who— ( a ) Is professionally qualified;
( b ) Is not precluded from participating in UR under § 456.107 of subpart C; or § 456.207 of subpart D; and
( c ) Is not precluded from effective participation in UR because he requires more than approximately 1 hour to travel between the remote facility and his place of work.
*Remote facility* means a facility located in an area that does not have enough available physicians or other professional personnel to perform UR as required under subparts C or D of this part, and for which the State requests a variance.
*Variance* means permission granted by the Administrator to the Medicaid agency for a specific remote facility to use time periods different from those specified for the start and completion of reviews of all cases under the following sections: §§ 456.125, 456.126, 456.136, and 456.137 of subpart C; and § 456.238 of subpart D.
[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 61 FR 38399, July 24, 1996]
HomePeople...Katie Stana

# 				Katie Stana			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of the Director General						Bureau of Global Talent Management												

				August 3, 2020 -									June 4, 2021							

**Katie Stana's term ended on June 4, 2021.** Katie Stana served as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Global Talent Management, with responsibility for the Department’s Locally Engaged Staff and Eligible Family Member employment issues, family member support, casualty assistance efforts, and the Department’s grievance framework. Prior to this assignment, she was Chief of Staff to the Director General of the Foreign Service, supporting the Director General to impart executive leadership and oversight to the Department’s 76,000 employees. In Washington, Katie has served as a Line Officer, a Senior Watch Officer, Deputy Director of the Line, Director of the Line, and as an assessor on the Board of Examiners. She also did a Pearson Foreign Policy Fellowship in the office of Senator Chris Murphy. Overseas, Katie served as International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Director at Embassy Islamabad, as Supervisory General Services Officer at Embassy Rome, as a Consular/Economic Rotational Officer at Embassy Ankara, and as General Services Officer at Embassy Montevideo.Katie is a 2016 graduate of the National War College at Ft. Lesley J. McNair and a 2002 graduate of the University of Virginia. She is a native of the Washington, DC area.
Tags
Bureau of Global Talent ManagementState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
#### Gertrude GIBBS, Appellant, v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Frank D. Bell, Heavy Equipment Services, Inc., etc., and Scott and Jobalia, Inc., etc., Appellees.

Nos. 80-962, 80-1023 and 80-1142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 24, 1981.

*1109W. M. Chanfrau of Chanfrau & Chanfrau, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

George A. Meier, III, and Sutton G. Hil-yard, Jr., of Pitts, Eubanks & Ross, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Scott and Jobalia, Inc.

No appearance for appellees Reliance, Bell and Heavy Equipment Services, Inc.

ORFINGER, Judge.

We dismiss the consolidated appeals, sua sponte, because the partial summary judge-ments appealed from are not appealable.

An order dismissing a claim for punitive damages, but not a claim for compensatory damages, whether contained in a single count or in multiple counts, is not an appealable final order where the claims arise out of the same set of facts. *Kingsland v. National Advertising Company,*384 So.2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Similarly, an order dismissing one count of a multi-count complaint is not appealable, even though based on a different legal theory, where the different counts all arise out of the same factual circumstances. *North Indialantic Homeowners Association v. Bogue,*390 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The first count of this two-count complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Bell as the driver of a vehicle involved in the collision with plaintiffs vehicle, and sought similar damages against the corporate defendants and their insurer, on two theories: (1) ownership of the vehicle Bell was driving; and (2) vicarious liability as his employer. The second count sued only the corporate defendants on the theory of negligent entrustment. The court granted the partial summary judgment in favor of the corporate defendants as to punitive damages claimed in the first count, and granted the partial summary judgment in their favor as to both the compensatory and punitive damages claimed in the second count. There still remains for determination under the first count the claim for compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Bell and the claim for compensatory damages against the corporate defendants. The claims which were dismissed all arise out of the same accident, involve the same parties and the same injuries and are clearly interrelated with those claims which remain. *Venezia A., Inc. v. Askew,*314 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), *cert. denied,*333 So.2d 465 (Fla.1976).

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to an appeal of the issues raised here following final judgment.

Appeal DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. TRADER’S COVE COMMUNITIES CORP., LTD., et al., Appellees.

No. 79-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 26, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1980.

Philip J. Snyderburn, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Robert K. Good, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Orlando, and Lawrence J. Nixon, Asst. State Atty., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

James M. Russ and I. Paul Mandelkern, Orlando, for appellee, Milton R. Wasman.

Douglas T. Huie, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee, William S. Gracey.

No appearance for appellee, Trader’s Cove Communities Corp., Ltd.

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is the same issue we have resolved in *Carcaise v. Durden,*382 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In this case the trial judge dismissed charges against the appellees on the grounds the statute of limitations had expired. As we held in *Carcaise,*the statute had not ex*1239pired so this cause is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of the charge and the further prosecution of them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CROSS and SHARP, JJ., concur.
§ 488.417 Denial of payment for all new admissions. ( a ) *Optional denial of payment.* Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, CMS or the State may deny payment for all new admissions when a facility is not in substantial compliance with the requirements, as defined in § 488.401, as follows: ( 1 ) *Medicare facilities.* In the case of Medicare facilities, CMS may deny payment to the facility.
( 2 ) *Medicaid facilities.* In the case of Medicaid facilities— ( i ) The State may deny payment to the facility; and
( ii ) CMS may deny payment to the State for all new Medicaid admissions to the facility.
( b ) *Required denial of payment.* CMS does or the State must deny payment for all new admissions when— ( 1 ) The facility is not in substantial compliance, as defined in § 488.401, 3 months after the last day of the survey identifying the noncompliance; or
( 2 ) The State survey agency has cited a facility with substandard quality of care on the last three consecutive standard surveys.
( c ) *Resumption of payments: Repeated instances of substandard quality of care.* When a facility has repeated instances of substandard quality of care, payments to the facility or, under Medicaid, CMS payments to the State on behalf of the facility, resume on the date that— ( 1 ) The facility achieves substantial compliance as indicated by a revisit or written credible evidence acceptable to CMS (for all facilities except non-State operated NFs against which CMS is imposing no remedies) or the State (for non-State operated NFs against which CMS is imposing no remedies); and
( 2 ) CMS (for all facilities except non-State operated NFs against which CMS is imposing no remedies) or the State (for non-State operated NFs against which CMS is imposing no remedies) believes that the facility is capable of remaining in substantial compliance.
( d ) *Resumption of payments: No repeated instances of substandard quality of care.* When a facility does not have repeated instances of substandard quality of care, payments to the facility or, under Medicaid, CMS payments to the State on behalf of the facility, resume prospectively on the date that the facility achieves substantial compliance, as indicated by a revisit or written credible evidence acceptable to CMS (under Medicare) or the State (under Medicaid).
( e ) *Restriction.* No payments to a facility or, under Medicaid, CMS payments to the State on behalf of the facility, are made for the period between the date that the— ( 1 ) Denial of payment remedy is imposed; and
( 2 ) Facility achieves substantial compliance, as determined by CMS or the State.
[59 FR 56243, Nov. 10, 1994; 60 FR 50119, Sept. 28, 1995]
# WTO ACCESSION A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE NEWPRIME MINISTER

 

SOURCE: U.S. EMBASSY, YEREVAN

DATE OF REPORT:  99/11/17

AUTHOR:  GEVORG ADAMYAN, ECONOMIC ASSISTANT

 

 

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT, U.S. &FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1999.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OUTSIDE OF THEUNITED STATES.

 

The following is a summary of thearticle "Armenian Prime Minister Meets U.S. Ambassador," whichappeared in the official newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutiun:

 

On November 9, the Prime Minister ofArmenia, Aram Sargsian, met with U.S. Ambassador Michael Lemmon.  The Prime Minister assured theAmbassador that he will continue the economic policies of his late brotherVazgen Sargsian.  The Ambassadoroffered U.S. assistance for Armenia's economic development, stressing inparticular the importance of Armenia's accession to the World TradeOrganization.  The Prime Ministersaid that he attaches great importance to Armenia's accession to the WTO andassured that relevant legislation would be presented to the National Assemblyfor approval very soon.  Ambassadoralso offered U.S. assistance to normalize economic relations between Armeniaand Turkey and to create a U.S.-Armenia joint economic taskforce, an initiativeof the late Prime Minister.

 

Contact Info

 

 

For more information regardingArmenia's accession to the WTO, please contact:

 

Gevorg Adamyan, Economic Assistant

U.S. Embassy, Yerevan

18 Marshal Baghramian Ave., Yerevan375019, Armenia

Phone: (374 2) 521-611, 151-551

Fax: (374 2) 151-550

E-mail: [email protected]
§ 50.502 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Public Health Service* means the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and all of their constituent agencies.
( b ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services to whom the authority involved has been delegated.
( c ) *Program funds* means ( 1 ) Federal funds provided through grant or contract to support a program or project covered by § 50.501, and
( 2 ) any non-Federal funds that are required as a condition of such grant or contract to be expended to carry out such program or project.
( d ) *Provider* means one who furnishes medical or pharmaceutical services or supplies for which program funds may be expended under any of the programs or projects described in § 50.501.
( e ) *Acquisition cost* means the price generally and currently paid by providers for a drug marketed or sold by a particular formulator or labeler in the package size of drug most frequently purchased by providers, as determined by the Secretary on the basis of drug price information furnished by the Department.
[40 FR 34514, Aug. 15, 1975, as amended at 49 FR 38109, Sept. 27, 1984]
§ 56.504 Grant evaluation and award. ( a ) Within the limits of funds determined by the Secretary to be available for such purpose, the Secretary may award grants under this subpart to applicants therefor which, in his judgment, will provide needed health services in a catchment area not served by another project funded under this part and meet the applicable requirements of section 319(c)(1)(B) of the Act and this part, in accordance with priorities established pursuant to section 319(b) of the Act and § 56.107 of subpart A of this part; *Provided,* That in the case of applicants which propose to serve substantially the same catchment areas or where available funds are insufficient to fund all approvable applications within a priority category specified in § 56.107, ( 1 ) Priority shall be given to applications submitted by community-based organizations which are representative of the population to be served by the project. For purposes of this paragraph, an applicant shall be deemed to be such an organization if it provides a formal mechanism (such as membership on the organization's governing body or membership on an advisory body) which gives migratory and seasonal agricultural workers and their families significant involvement in the formulation of the organization's policies; and
( 2 ) Where all such applicants are community-based organizations representative of the population to be served by the project, the Secretary shall award the grant to the applicants which will, in his judgment, best promote the purposes of section 319(c)(1)(B) of the Act and the applicable regulations of this part, taking into account with respect to each application: ( i ) The degree to which the proposed project satisfactorily provides for the elements set forth in § 56.203;
( ii ) The administrative and management capability of the applicant;
( iii ) The extent to which community resources will be utilized in the project; and
( iv ) The degree to which the applicant intends to integrate services supported by a grant under this part with health services provided under other federally assisted health services or reimbursement programs or projects.
( b ) The Secretary shall award no more than one grant under this subpart for the same project.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EX REL: MICHAEL J. PISKANIN, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, KATHLEEN G. KANE, 

ESQ. (AND SUCCESSORS); AND 

PENNSYLVANIA UNIFIED JUDICIAL 

SYSTEM, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 137 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Review and Writ of Mandamus is 

DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 11, 2023

No. 04-22-00603-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-CI-02683

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s reply brief was due on January 9, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). On the 

due date, Appellant filed an unopposed motion for a fourteen-day extension of time to file the 

reply brief. 

Appellant’s motion is granted; the reply brief is due on January 23, 2023. See id. R. 

38.6(d).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of January, 2023.

__________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
§ 495.60 Participation requirements for EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs. ( a ) An eligible hospital, CAH or EP must submit in a manner specified by CMS the following information in the first payment year: ( 1 ) Name of the EP, eligible hospital or CAH.
( 2 ) National Provider Identifier (NPI).
( 3 ) Business address, business email address, and phone number.
( 4 ) Such other information as specified by CMS.
( b ) In addition to the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, an eligible hospital or CAH, must, in the first payment year, submit in a manner specified by CMS its CMS Certification Number (CCN) and its Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
( c ) Subject to paragraph (f) of this section, in addition to the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, an EP must submit in a manner specified by CMS, the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) which may be the EP's Social Security Number (SSN) to which the EP's incentive payment should be made.
( d ) In the event the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section as previously submitted to CMS is no longer accurate, the EP, eligible hospital or CAH must provide updated information to CMS or the State on a timely basis in the manner specified by CMS or the State.
( e ) An EP that qualifies as both a Medicaid EP and Medicare EP— ( 1 ) Must notify CMS in the manner specified by CMS as to whether he or she elects to participate in the Medicare or the Medicaid EHR incentive program;
( 2 ) After receiving at least one EHR incentive payment, may switch between the two EHR incentive programs only one time, and only for a payment year before 2015;
( 3 ) Must, for each payment year, meet all of the applicable requirements, including applicable patient volume requirements, for the program in which he or she chooses to participate (Medicare or Medicaid);
( 4 ) Is limited to receiving, in total, the maximum payments the EP would receive under the Medicaid EHR program, as described in subpart D of this part; and
( 5 ) Is placed in the payment year the EP would have been in had the EP begun in and remained in the program to which he or she has switched. For example, an EP that begins receiving Medicaid incentive payments in 2011, and then switches to the Medicare program for 2012, is in his or her second payment year in 2012.
( f ) *Limitations on incentive payment reassignments.* ( 1 ) EPs are permitted to reassign their incentive payments to their employer or to an entity with which they have a contractual arrangement allowing the employer or entity to bill and receive payment for the EP's covered professional services.
( 2 ) ( i ) Assignments in Medicare must be consistent with Section 1842(b)(6)(A) of the Act and 42 CFR part 424 subpart F.
( ii ) Medicaid EPs may also assign their incentive payments to a TIN for an entity promoting the adoption of EHR technology, consistent with subpart D of this part.
( 3 ) Each EP may reassign the entire amount of the incentive payment to only one employer or entity.
[75 FR 44565, July 28, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 54157, Sept. 4, 2012. Redesignated at 80 FR 62943, Oct. 16, 2015]