alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – June 25, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – June 25, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

June 23, 2022

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Germany and Spain from June 23-30, 2022. Learn more.

11:00 a.m. LOCAL Secretary Blinken meets with U.S. Embassy Berlin staff in Berlin, Germany.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Adolph Karpas, Appellant, *v.*Moore Engelhardt, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, for the fourth district.

Jacob H. Denenholz, for appellant. .

Max D. Steuer, for respondent.

Leventritt, J.

The plaintiff brings this action on an alleged

sral agreement made between him and the defendant, who, as an agent of the Realty Trust Co., was engaged in selling lots belonging to that corporation. He contends that the agreement was to the effect, that he was to receive from the defendant, one-half of the commissions, which the latter might earn upon the sales of the company’s real estate to purchasers, introduced by the plaintiff. He claims that pursuant to that agreement a sale was effected to one Johnson; that the defendant received a commission, but refused to pay him his share. The defendant denies that he made any agreement whatsoever with the plaintiff and denies that the purchaser was introduced by him.

We can see in this case only a square conflict on questions of fact, which the justice resolved in favor of the defendant, and. while we might regard the version of the plaintiff as more plausible, yet as the record does not disclose bias, prejudice or injustice, we cannot, under the decisions of this court, disturb the judgment. Hair v. Cohen, *ante,*p. 801; Smith v. Davis, ante, p. 798.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Freedman, P. J., and MacLean, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 19, 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00605

- CR

Quintel Lamar Phynon , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTIC E BY RNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the tr i a l court

.

Quintel Lamar Phy non has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the

motion, allows Quintel Lamar Phynon to withdraw his notice of appeal, and dismisses the

appeal. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of co sts is made.
§ 495.206 Timeframe for payment to qualifying MA organizations. ( a ) CMS makes payment to qualifying MA organizations for qualifying MA EPs under the MA EHR incentive program after computing incentive payments due under the Medicare FFS EHR incentive program according to § 495.102.
( b ) Payments to qualifying MA organizations for qualifying MA-affiliated eligible hospitals under common corporate governance are made under the Medicare FFS EHR incentive program, following the timeline in specified in § 495.104 of this part. To the extent sufficient data do not exist to pay qualifying MA-affiliated eligible hospitals under common corporate governance under the Medicare FFS EHR incentive program, payment is made under the MA EHR incentive program, following the same timeline in § 495.104 of this part.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Universal American Financial Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
A. Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Robert A. Waegelein

Robert A. Waegelein
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003


                                       65
250 Church St. SE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97301, phone: 503.967.1568, www.traveloregon.com

OREGON. WE LOVE DREAMERS.

May 27, 2015

The Honorable Anthony Foxx

Secretary of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker

Secretary of Commerce

U.S. Department of Commerce

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

The Honorable John F. Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Foxx, Secretary Pritzker and Secretary Kerry:

I serve as the CEO of Travel Oregon. I’m writing to urge you to preserve airline competition through 

U.S. Open Skies agreements and reject calls to freeze new routes to U.S. airports from Gulf airlines – a 

request that is pending before your agencies and the Obama Administration. 

In recent years, the Obama Administration has taken a strong stand in favor of travel and tourism. From 

the signing of the landmark Travel Promotion Act and the creation of Brand USA to the establishment of 

a National Travel and Tourism Strategy and its goal of attracting 100 million international visitors to the 

U.S. annually, the Administration clearly recognizes that travel is an important contributor to our nation’s 

economy. 

America’s Open Skies agreements with our overseas partners are a critical component of the travel policy 

needed to reach that goal of 100 million travelers. In 2014, Oregon attracted over 2 million international 

visitors – a nearly 9% increase over 2013, who spent over $550 million at thousands of Oregon 

destinations, restaurants, retail stores, hotels and other businesses that support the travel industry. 
250 Church St. SE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97301, phone: 503.967.1568, www.traveloregon.com

OREGON. WE LOVE DREAMERS.

Both Emirates and Etihad Airways have code sharing partnerships with JetBlue, which serves Portland. 

Given the increasing demand for travel from critical travel markets in India, the Middle East, Asia and 

other fast-growing markets, our hope would be to expand air service in anticipation that one day we can 

expand direct international service to Oregon.

We see boosting international travel as critical to our state’s economy and are working hard to share 

Oregon’s great destinations with a broader travel audience. Freezing new flights while within an Open 

Skies Agreement is counter to the intentions of the agreement, will inhibit competition, and makes it 

harder for states like Oregon to attract more international visitors. 

Best regards,

Todd Davidson

CEO
§ 480.103 Statutory bases for disclosure of information. ( a ) Section 1154(a)(10) of the Act requires QIOs to exchange information with intermediaries and carriers with contracts under sections 1816 and 1842 of the Act, other QIOs, and other public or private review organizations as appropriate.
( b ) Section 1160 of the Act provides that QIO information must be held in confidence and not be disclosed except where— ( 1 ) Necessary to carry out the purpose of Title XI Part B of the Act;
( 2 ) Specifically permitted or required under this subpart;
( 3 ) Necessary, and in the manner prescribed under this subpart, to assist Federal and State agencies recognized by the Secretary as having responsibility for identifying and investigating cases or patterns of fraud or abuse;
( 4 ) Necessary, and in the manner prescribed under the subpart to assist Federal or State agencies recognized by the Secretary as having responsibility for identifying cases or patterns involving risks to the public health;
( 5 ) Necessary, and in the manner prescribed under this subpart, to assist appropriate State agencies having responsibility for licensing or certification of providers or practitioners; or
( 6 ) Necessary, and in the manner prescribed under this subpart to assist Federal or State health planning agencies by furnishing them aggregate statistical data on a geographical, institutional or other basis.
[50 FR 15359, Apr. 17, 1985; 50 FR 41886, Oct. 16, 1985. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999]
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3428

For the relief of certain former spouses of employees of the Federal

Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 1996

Mr. OXLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

For the relief of certain former spouses of employees of

the Federal Government.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR SURVIVOR ANNUITY BENE4 FITS.

5 For the purpose of determining eligibility for survivor

6 annuity benefits for a former spouse under section 8341

7 of title 5, United States Code, an application of any

8 former spouse shall be approved if—

9 (1) the annuitant is deceased;
2

•HR 3428 IH

1 (2) the former spouse was living as of January

2 1, 1992;

3 (3) the former spouse has not received Social

4 Security benefits based on eligibility as the spouse of

5 the annuitant;

6 (4) such application was filed on or after Janu7 ary 1, 1989;

8 (5) the annuitant rendered at least 25 years of

9 creditable service to the Federal Government;

10 (6) at the time of the annuitant’s retirement,

11 the annuitant and the former spouse had been mar12 ried at least 25 years;

13 (7) at the time of the annuitant’s retirement,

14 the annuitant designated the former spouse to re15 ceive survivor annuity benefits;

16 (8) the annuitant and the former spouse were

17 divorced prior to September 14, 1978, and after the

18 annuitant retired;

19 (9) neither at the time of the divorce nor at any

20 time thereafter was a joint waiver of survivor annu21 ity benefits executed between the annuitant and the

22 former spouse;

23 (10) the divorce decree was silent as to survivor

24 annuity benefits or designated the former spouse to

25 receive survivor annuity benefits;
3

•HR 3428 IH

1 (11) subsequent to the divorce of the annuitant

2 and the former spouse, the annuitant advised the

3 Office of Personnel Management of the divorce;

4 (12) neither annuitant nor the former spouse

5 married any other individual after their divorce from

6 each other;

7 (13) no direct notice outlining or defining the

8 former spouse’s survivor annuity benefits election

9 rights was delivered to the former spouse by the Of10 fice of Personnel Management; and

11 (14) the former spouse has exhausted all judi12 cial remedies up to and including remedies available

13 through the United States Court of Appeals.

Æ
----

|   | 1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Paul O. Koether     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Paul O. Koether         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Bryan P. Healey     |   |
| Bryan P. Healey         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 353 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 353

 To prohibit the export of American black bear viscera, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Porter  introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
     Committee on Resources and, in addition, to the Committees on 
    International Relations and Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the export of American black bear viscera, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Black Bear Protection Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF AMERICAN BLACK BEAR VISCERA.

    The Secretary of Commerce shall exercise the authorities the 
Secretary has under the Export Administration Act of 1979 to prohibit 
the export from the United States of American black bear viscera.

SEC. 3. REPORT BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

    The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary 
of the Treasury, shall prepare and submit to the Congress, not later 
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report 
that describes--
            (1) the effectiveness of the computerized information 
        system or any other system of the Fish and Wildlife Service or 
        the United States Customs Service that records data on the 
        importation or exportation of wildlife body parts, specifically 
        of the American black bear, to and from the United States; and
            (2) any plans of the Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor 
        the illegal movement of, or commercial activity in, American 
        black bear viscera or other American black bear body parts.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

    The United States Trade Representative shall discuss the issues 
involving trade in American black bear viscera with the appropriate 
representatives of those countries trading with the United States who 
are determined jointly by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to 
be the leading importers of American black bear viscera.

SEC. 5. DEFINITION.

    As used in this Act, the term ``American black bear viscera'' means 
the gall bladder or any internal organs of an American black bear 
(Ursus Americanus).
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41633 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RENE GARCIA-BANUELOS, also known as Rene Garcia-Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16 -CR- 1332 -2

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Rene Garcia -Banuelos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia -Banuelos ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41633 Document: 00514194796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2017No. 16

- 41633

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion f or leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41633 Document: 00514194796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2017
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Lima Ministerial Meeting on the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection

# 									Lima Ministerial Meeting on the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 6, 2022

The October 6 Lima Ministerial Meeting on the Los Angeles Declaration convened endorsing countries to discuss successes, opportunities, and next steps in addressing the challenges posed by irregular migration in the Western Hemisphere.  Endorsing countries identified concrete and ambitious commitments to maintain the momentum of the Los Angeles Declaration initiative, presented during the Ninth Summit of the Americas in June 2022.

During the October 6 Ministerial Meeting, the 21 endorsing countries agreed on priority areas for interventions to create conditions for safe, orderly, and humane migration.  Partners agreed to work together to advance the pillars of the Los Angeles Declaration:  1) stability and assistance; 2) legal pathways; 3) humane migration management; and 4) emergency response.  Participants identified key workstreams under the first three pillars of the Los Angeles Declaration that will develop shared lines of policy action.  Countries volunteered to lead the various Action Package Committees, and each endorsing country will participate in at least one Action Package Committee to shape its commitments under the Los Angeles Declaration.

## Pillar 1:  Stability and Assistance for Communities

        - Integration and Support for Host Communities :  Lead:  Chile  Participants:  El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, Guyana
        - Temporary Protection and Regularization: Lead:  Colombia  Participants:  Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti
        - International Financing for Migrant Hosting Countries :  Lead:  Ecuador  Participants:  Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Guyana, Peru, United States

## Pillar 2:  Regular Pathways for Migration and International Protection

        - Labor Mobility :  Lead:  Mexico  Participants:  Haiti, United States, El Salvador, Guatemala
        - Investing in Asylum :  Lead:  Canada  Participants:  Costa Rica, Haiti
        - Refugee Resettlement :  Lead:  Canada and Guyana  Participants:  Mexico, Uruguay, United States
        - Family Reunification and Alternative Migration Pathways :  Lead:  El Salvador  Participants:  Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala

## Pillar 3:  Humane Migration Management

        - Countering Human Smuggling and Trafficking :  Lead:  United States  Participants:  Argentina, El Salvador, Colombia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Panama, Guyana
        - Return and Reintegration :  Lead:  Guatemala  Participants:  Haiti, El Salvador
        - Aligning Visa and travel Standards :  Lead:  Paraguay and Peru  Participants:  United States, Paraguay
        - Combatting Xenophobia :  Lead:  Peru  Participants:  Argentina, Mexico

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOrganization of American StatesSummit of the Americas

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 476.160 General quality of care review procedures. ( a ) *Scope of the QIO review.* A QIO may conduct a general quality of care review in accordance with section 1154(a)(1)(B) of the Act. ( 1 ) A QIO may conduct general quality of care reviews based on— ( i ) Concerns identified during the course of other QIO review activities;
( ii ) Referrals from other sources, including but not limited to individuals, contractors, other Federal or State agencies; or
( iii ) Analysis of data.
( 2 ) The QIO's review will focus on all concerns identified by the QIO and/or identified by those who have referred or reported the concerns, with consideration being given to the episode of care related to the concerns.
( 3 ) The QIO will use evidence-based standards of care to the maximum extent practicable. If no standard of care exists, the QIO must use available norms, best practices, and established guidelines to establish the standard that will be used in completing the review. The QIO's determination regarding the standard used is not subject to appeal.
( b ) *Medical information requests.* Upon request by the QIO, a provider or practitioner must deliver all medical information requested within 14 calendar days of the request. A QIO is authorized to require the receipt of the medical information sooner if the QIO makes a preliminary determination that the review involves a potential gross and flagrant or substantial quality of care concern and circumstances warrant earlier receipt of the medical information. A practitioner's or provider's failure to comply with the request for medical information within the established timeframe may result in the QIO taking action in accordance with § 476.90.
( c ) *Initial determination.* The QIO peer reviewer will complete the review and the practitioner and/or provider will be notified of the initial determination in writing within 10 calendar days of the receipt of all medical information.
[77 FR 68561, Nov. 15, 2012]
§ 493.1262 Standard: Mycobacteriology. ( a ) Each day of use, the laboratory must check all reagents or test procedures used for mycobacteria identification with at least one acid-fast organism that produces a positive reaction and an acid-fast organism that produces a negative reaction.
( b ) For antimycobacterial susceptibility tests, the laboratory must check each batch of media and each lot number and shipment of antimycobacterial agent(s) before, or concurrent with, initial use, using an appropriate control organism(s). ( 1 ) The laboratory must establish limits for acceptable control results.
( 2 ) Each week tests are performed, the laboratory must use the appropriate control organism(s) to check the procedure.
( 3 ) The results for the control organism(s) must be within established limits before reporting patient results.
( c ) The laboratory must document all control procedures performed, as specified in this section.