alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Travel to Belgium

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Travel to Belgium							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 24, 2024

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell will travel to Brussels, Belgium, May 28-29 for meetings with counterparts at NATO, the European Union, and the Government of Belgium. His visit will underscore the strength and unity of the transatlantic partnership and its critical role in global security and prosperity. At NATO, the Deputy Secretary will address Allies at a North Atlantic Council meeting and meet NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană to discuss progress toward the Washington Summit. The Deputy Secretary will meet European External Action Service Secretary General Stefano Sannino to further U.S.-EU partnership in addressing shared challenges from Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. The Deputy Secretary will meet senior Belgian government officials to discuss bilateral and regional cooperation to reinforce support for Ukraine and hold Russia to account.

Tags

BelgiumDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesIndo-PacificMiddle EastNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSecurity

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – January 10, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – January 10, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

January 10, 2024

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**11:00 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**5:40 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa in Manama, Bahrain.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma is on official travel.

**ACTING DEPUTY SECRETARY VICTORIA NULAND**

Acting Deputy Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS JAMES O’BRIEN**

**11:00 a.m.** Assistant Secretary O’Brien meets with National Democratic Institute Eurasia Regional Deputy Director Katie Fox at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**4:00 p.m.** Assistant Secretary O’Brien meets with Cypriot Ambassador to the United States Evangelos Savva at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**5:15 p.m.**Assistant Secretary O’Brien meets with European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Managing Director for Central Asia Zsuzsanna Hargitai at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIFEN SUN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72474

Agency No. A099

- 967

- 633

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Weif e n Sun, native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

* This disp osition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72474

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinati ons created by the

REAL ID Act

. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3 d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010) . We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supp orts the agency’s adverse credi bility determination

based Sun’s misrepresentations regarding her relationship with Wang

. See id . at

104 8; Singh v. Holder , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (an “applicant who lies

to immigration authorities casts doubt o n his credibility and the rest of his story”) ;

Garcia v. Holder , 7 49 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence was insufficient to

rehabilitate testimony or support independent claim for relief). In the ab sence of

credible testimony, in this case, Sun ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sun ’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

ag ency found not credible, and Sun does not point to any evidence that compels the

conclusion t hat it is more likely than not s he would be tortured if returned to

China

. See id . at 1156

- 57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 440.320 State plan requirements: Optional enrollment for exempt individuals. ( a ) *General rule.* A State plan that offers exempt individuals as defined in § 440.315 the option to enroll in benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage must identify in its State plan the exempt groups for which this coverage is available, and must comply with the following provisions: ( 1 ) In any case in which the State offers an exempt individual the option to obtain coverage in a benchmark or benchmark-equivalent benefit package, the State must effectively inform the individual prior to enrollment that the enrollment is voluntary and that the individual may disenroll from the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage at any time and regain immediate access to standard full Medicaid coverage under the State plan.
( 2 ) Prior to any enrollment in benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage, the State must inform the exempt individual of the benefits available under the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent benefit package and the costs under such a package and provide a comparison of how they differ from the benefits and costs available under the standard full Medicaid program. The State must also inform exempt individuals that they may disenroll at any time and provide them with information about the process for disenrolling.
( 3 ) The State must document in the exempt individual's eligibility file that the individual was informed in accordance with this section prior to enrollment, was given ample time to arrive at an informed choice, and voluntarily and affirmatively chose to enroll in the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent benefit package.
( 4 ) For individuals who the State determines have become exempt individuals while enrolled in benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage, the State must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section above within 30 days after such determination.
( b ) *Disenrollment Process.* ( 1 ) The State must act upon requests promptly for exempt individuals who choose to disenroll from benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage.
( 2 ) The State must have a process in place to ensure that exempt individuals have access to all standard State plan services while disenrollment requests are being processed.
( 3 ) The State must maintain data that tracks the total number of beneficiaries that have voluntarily enrolled in a benchmark plan and the total number of individuals that have disenrolled from the benchmark plan.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22349]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-C-13]


Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009; Self-
Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP); Clarifications and 
Technical Corrections

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of corrections and clarifications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 13, 2009, HUD posted its FY2009 SHOP NOFA on the 
Grants.gov website. The FY2009 SHOP NOFA makes $26.5 million in 
assistance to national and regional nonprofit organizations and 
consortia which facilitate and encourage innovative homeownership 
opportunities for low-income individuals and families. Through this 
document, HUD announces that it has posted a notice that corrects and 
clarifies a number of provisions in the FY2009 SHOP NOFA posted on July 
13, 2009. Specifically, the notice: (1) Clarifies the requirement for 
applicants to reduce energy costs, (2) clarifies the requirement for 
font size; (3) clarifies the requirement that the page limit is four 
pages for rating factor 2, and (4) corrects a posting error that 
resulted in the Tables 1 and 2 being misprinted in the posted document. 
The notice making these corrections is available on Grants.gov Web site 
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms_apps_idx.html. A link to 
Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.
    To permit applicants time to prepare applications that take into 
account these changes, HUD is extending the application submission 
deadline for the FY2009 SHOP NOFA until September 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information concerning 
the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), contact Lou 
Thompson, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community 
Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7168, Washington DC 20410-7000; telephone 
202-402-4594 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or 
hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling 
the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 
800-877-8339.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
Mercedes M[aacute]rquez,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. E9-22349 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### Billy Ray KING v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 51343.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 16, 1980.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Marvin L. White, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

COFER, Justice, for the Court:

Movant, Billy Ray King, appellant, has filed motion herein for his release from custody, on bond, pending his attempt to procure review of his case, by certiorari, by the United States Supreme Court.

It appears to us (1) that his motion is governed by our Rule 45; (2) that appearance bond on his appeal to this Court was set at $15,000, and that a bond in double that penalty or $30,000, is required by Rule 45; (3) that movant has not complied with that Rule by filing with his motion a duly approved appearance bond. *See Booker v. State,*328 So.2d 668 (Miss.1976).

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to the movant.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### BOSHALL V. JENKINS.

(Decided Nov. 30, 1911.)

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
1

Cause No. 12-15-000157-CR

In the Court of Appeals for the 

Twelfth Judicial District at Tyler, Texas

Stanford Jones, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

State of Texas,

Appellee

On Appeal from Cause No. 2013-0744 in the 217th 

Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas

State’s First Motion for Extension (Unopposed)

To the Honorable Justices of this Court:

Appellee, State of Texas, moves for a 30-day extension of time to file its 

brief.

I.

Undre the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the general deadline to file 

an appellee’s brief is 30 days after the date the appellant’s brief was filed. Tex. R. 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00157-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/16/2015 11:43:07 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/16/2015 11:43:07 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
2

App. P.38.6(b). Appellant’s Brief was filed on October 15, 2015, giving the State 

until Monday November 16, 2015 to file its brief. 

The State of Texas now requests a 30-day extension of time in which to file 

its brief.

II.

Good cause exists for allowing the State additional time to file its brief for 

the following reasons:

1. Counsel for the State has had a medical emergency and has been out

of the office since November 2, 2015.

2. Counsel for the Appellant is unopposed to this extension.

III.

From the above-listed reasons, the State has demonstrated that good cause 

for the failure to be able to submit its brief by the Court’s deadline. This is the 

State’s first motion for extension, and it is not brought for purposes of delay or 

harrassment, but to see that justice is done.

Wherefore, Appellee State of Texas prays that the Court grant its requested 

30-day extension to file its State’s Brief in this matter.
3

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ April Ayers-Perez

Assistant District Attorney

Angelina County D.A.’s Office

P.O. Box 908

Lufkin, Texas 75902

(936) 632-5090 phone

(936) 637-2818 fax

State Bar No. 24090975

ATTORNEY FOR THE

STATE OF TEXAS

Certificate of Service

I certify that on November 16, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above 

document has been forwarded to John Reeves, by electronic service through 

efile.txcourts.gov.

/s/ April Ayers-Perez

Certificate of Conference

I certify that on November 15, 2015, I conferred with John Reeves about this 

motion, and certify that he was unopposed to a 30-day extension.

/s/ April Ayers-Perez
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.221 Request for hearing. ( a ) ( 1 ) The agency must establish procedures that permit an individual, or an authorized representative as defined at § 435.923 of this chapter, to— ( i ) Submit a hearing request via any of the modalities described in § 435.907(a) of this chapter, except that the requirement to establish procedures for submission of a fair hearing request described in § 435.907(a)(1), (2) and (5) of this chapter (relating to submissions via Internet Web site, telephone and other electronic means) is effective no later than the date described in § 435.1200(i) of this chapter; and
( ii ) Include in a hearing request submitted under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, a request for an expedited fair hearing.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) The agency may not limit or interfere with the applicant's or beneficiary's freedom to make a request for a hearing.
( c ) The agency may assist the applicant or beneficiary in submitting and processing his request.
( d ) The agency must allow the applicant or beneficiary a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days from the date that notice of action is mailed, to request a hearings.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 81 FR 86448, Nov. 30, 2016]
HomePeople...Kurt Donnelly

# 				Kurt Donnelly			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of Energy Resources												

				August 12, 2019 -									October 4, 2021							

**Kurt Donnelly's term ended on October 4, 2021.** Kurt Donnelly is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service.  He was the Department of State Bureau of Energy Resources’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Diplomacy.  Prior to coming back to Washington, DC, DAS Donnelly served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia.  His other assignments include the U.S. Mission to NATO, Afghanistan, Turkey, Hungary, Russia, Germany, the National Security Council, Director of the State Department Office for International Religious Freedom, and Director for Central Asian Affairs.
Tags
Bureau of Energy ResourcesState 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
#### STATE of Florida REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Charles E. FELIX, Appellee.

No. RR-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 9, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1980.

*942Wendell J. Kiser of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellant.

Jessee F. Sparks and Robert E. Sheridan, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The employer appeals the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims awarding claimant temporary total disability benefits, permanent total disability benefits reduced by 50 percent as a result of a pre-existing condition, medical treatment, attorney fees and costs. Claimant cross-appeals that portion of the order which reduces by 50 percent his permanent total disability benefits.

Claimant is a member of the Florida Bar who practiced as a staff attorney for the Florida Real Estate Commission. He left private practice in 1966 after suffering a heart attack and underwent a coronary bypass operation in 1971. Thereafter, claimant sought less stressful employment, and took a position with the Commission. Beginning in January, 1976, claimant began working on “advance fee cases” and, in connection therewith, was required, during May, 1978, to schedule an estimated 20 depositions in 15 cities within a two-week period. During the second week of these depositions, claimant experienced chest pain and was hospitalized in Kentucky with a diagnosis of myocardial infarction which resulted in claimant’s claim for compensation due to a heart attack arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Deputy’s order finding compensability is, in part, as follows:

> I find that the myocardial infarction suffered by the claimant in May, 1978, was caused by the overall effects of the out-of-state trip as well as the stress of his job. Although, I find there was no specifically identifiable effort which caused the heart attack, the overall stress of the trip over a several day period is sufficient to distinguish this case from the case of *Richards Department Store v. Donin,*365 So.2d 385 (Fla.1978).

The foregoing findings are insufficient to meet the requirements of *Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley,*141 So.2d 581 (Fla.1962), *Tintera v. Armour & Co.,*362 So.2d 1344 (Fla.1978), and *Richards Department Store v. Donin,*365 So.2d 385 (Fla.1978).

Accordingly, the order below is REVERSED with directions that the claim be dismissed.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and SHAW, JJ., concur.

BOOTH, J., dissents with opinion.

BOOTH, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent from this court’s retention of jurisdiction in this case, which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See *Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor,*378 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

On the merits, I would concur in the majority’s opinion.
#### MITCHELL V. HAWKINS.

(Decided June 8, 1911.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. C. C. Nesmith.

*668No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 488.436 Civil money penalties: Waiver of hearing, reduction of penalty amount. ( a ) *Constructive waiver of a hearing.* A facility is considered to have waived its right to a hearing after 60 days from the date of the notice imposing the civil money penalty if CMS has not received a request for a hearing from the facility.
( b ) *Reduction of penalty amount.* ( 1 ) If the facility waives its right to a hearing in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, CMS or the State reduces the civil money penalty by 35 percent, as long as the civil money penalty has not also been reduced by 50 percent under § 488.438.
( 2 ) If the facility does not waive its right to a hearing in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the civil money penalty is not reduced by 35 percent.
[59 FR 56243, Nov. 10, 1994; 62 FR 44221, Aug. 20, 1997, as amended at 76 FR 15127, Mar. 18, 2011; 88 FR 53347, Aug. 7, 2023]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur Edward SAUCIER.

No. 65287.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Arthur Saucier, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 2-79-213.

Granted. The trial judge is ordered to grant applicant a new hearing.

MARCUS, J.,

concurs. Trial judge should follow procedures set forth in R.S. 13:1571.1 and *State v. Everfield,*342 So.2d 648 (La.1977).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl LaRUE.

No. 62394.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Carl LaRue, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Caddo.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable John R. Ballard, Judge of the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 3rd day of November, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
§ 456.610 Basis for determinations. In making the determinations on adequacy of services and related matters under § 456.609 for each beneficiary, the team may consider such items as whether— ( a ) The medical evaluation, any required social and psychological evaluations, and the plan of care are complete and current; the plan of care and, where required, the plan of rehabilitation are followed; and all ordered services, including dietary orders, are provided and properly recorded;
( b ) The attending physician reviews prescribed medications— ( 1 ) At least every 30 days in psychiatric facilities, and mental hospitals; and
( 2 ) At least quarterly in ICFs;
( c ) Tests or observations of each beneficiary indicated by his medication regimen are made at appropriate times and properly recorded;
( d ) Physician, nurse, and other professional progress notes are made as required and appear to be consistent with the observed condition of the beneficiary;
( e ) The beneficiary receives adequate services, based on such observations as— ( 1 ) Cleanliness;
( 2 ) Absence of bedsores;
( 3 ) Absence of signs of malnutrition or dehydration; and
( 4 ) Apparent maintenance of maximum physical, mental, and psychosocial funtion;
( f ) In an ICF, the beneficiary receives adequate rehabilitative services, as evidenced by— ( 1 ) A planned program of activities to prevent regression; and
( 2 ) Progress toward meeting objectives of the plan of care;
( g ) The beneficiary needs any service that is not furnished by the facility or through arrangements with others; and
( h ) The beneficiary needs continued placement in the facility or there is an appropriate plan to transfer the beneficiary to an alternate method of care.
[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 61 FR 38399, July 24, 1996]