alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41168, 41169.

#### LOVETT v. THE STATE (two cases).

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

Prior to 1962, the Code sections dealing with the form and contents of affidavits and warrants provided that a substantial compliance with their provisions would be sufficient. See former *Code*§§ 27-104, 27-105. A case on all fours with the present case, decided under these former Code sections, held the demurrer properly overruled. *Williams v. State,*107 Ga. 693 (1) (33 SE 641).

Then the General Assembly acted with the passage of Ga. L. 1962, p. 668 *(Code Ann.*§§ 27-103.1, 27-104, 27-105) and the repeal of the former law. The new statutes required further information in affidavits and warrants *(Code Ann.*§ 27-103.1). The language “substantial compliance” was omitted.1 Fur*296thermore, while the language of the forms remained the same, where a blank for setting out the offense formerly appeared the legislature now specified, in bold face type: “(insert here all information describing offense as required by Code section 27-103 and Code section 27-103.1).” The obvious intent of the legislature in making these changes was to insist that affidavits and warrants comply with the statutory standard of required information.

Decided March 10, 1965.

*Limerick L. Odom,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harry H. Hunter, Solicitor,*contra.

Thus, the General Assembly has eliminated the basis for the decisions in *Williams v. State,*107 Ga. 693 (1), supra, *Dickson v. State,*62 Ga. 583, *Kumpe v. Hall,*167 Ga. 284 (145 SE 509), *Cain v. Kendrick,*199 Ga. 147 (33 SE2d 417) and cases of similar import. They are no longer controlling.

“The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.” United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76. This declaration of Chief Justice Marshall, reaching back across the centuries since Runnymede, stands -unchanged through the years and is undiminished in the respect and observance afforded it by English speaking judges wherever they sit.

The trial judge should have sustained the general demurrer. Proceedings after overruling it were nugatory. *State Hwy. Dept. v. Reed,*211 Ga. 197 (4) (84 SE2d 561).

*Judgments reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

1

Former *Code*§ 27-104, setting out the form of affidavit for arrest, began “An affidavit *substantially*complying with the following form shall, in all cases be sufficient. . .” (Emphasis added). The new law begins “An affidavit complying with the following form shall, in all cases, be sufficient. . .” The warrant form section *(Code Ann.*§ 27-105) was identically changed.
HomeNATO Recent Actions...NATO – Sweden Accession Protocol – Notification of Entry Into Force, March 7, 2024

# 									NATO – Sweden Accession Protocol – Notification of Entry Into Force, March 7, 2024							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [97 KB]

Tags

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationSweden

Back to Top
§ 600.600 Basis, scope, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements section 1331(d)(1) and (3) of the Affordable Care Act regarding the transfer of Federal funds to a State's BHP trust fund and the Federal payment amount to a State for the provision of BHP.
( b ) *Scope and applicability.* This subpart consists of provisions relating to the methodology used to calculate the amount of payment to a state in a given Federal fiscal year for the provision of BHP and the process and procedures by which the Secretary establishes a State's BHP payment amount.
#### Frederick K. Lewis, Appellant, *v.*Rudolph Heydenreich, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment recovered by the defendant in the Municipal Court, first district, New York city.

Ludvigh & Ryttenberg, for appellant.

Henry E. Frankenberg, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

In this action brought for commissions alleged to have been earned by one Baer, the assignor of the plaintiff testified that he had been employed by the defendant to sell goods belonging, as he admitted he knew, upon cross-examination, to one Lehman (who resided and did business in Germany), for whom the defendant was agent, and into whose employment the assignor himself went after the defendant had been succeeded in his agency in this country by a new representative, one Manitz. He also admitted that at the time of his engagement under Manitz, the defendant’s successor, he had assigned to him, as representing Lehman, all his claims against Ileydenreich, which assignment he claimed was redelivered to him; that he had rendered to Manitz a bill as of Lehman’s indebtnedness to him, in which he included all his claims in this action, and that a suit thereon had been settled. Upon this it would seem difficult to maintain the claims set up by the plaintiff herein. Then the defendant testified for himself and gave a different version of the arrangement, stating that he was to pay commissions only npon receipt of the same from Lehman, and that it had not been received by him. On this testimony, involving a conflict of evidence, the justice rendered judgment for the defendant, to disturb which, no reason has been shown by the appellant.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Levewtritt, J., concurs.

Freedman, P. J. (Concurring.)

The case presents a sharp

conflict of testimony, and, in determining such conflict in the manner he did, the trial judge seems to' have done substantial justice. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgmeut affirmed, with costs.
*The HONORABLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. ___________ No. 95-2395

___________ Donna M. Fouts, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * Northern District of Iowa. of Social Security, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 14, 1995 Filed: January 16, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, * Chief District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.
Following a fall at work, Donna M. Fouts underwent back surgery in October 1991 and applied for Social Security disability benefits in March 1992, alleging a disability onset date of September 17, 1991. After her application was denied initially and on reconsideration, an administrative hearing was held in February 1993. The administrative law judge denied Ms. Fouts's application, finding that she has the residual functional capacity to perform jobs such as statistical clerk, night clerk, timekeeper, office helper, assembler, and hand packager. The Commissioner's Appeals Council accepted additional medical evidence but denied review.1 The HONORABLE EDWARD J. McMANUS, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2- Ms. Fouts then sought judicial review of the final agency action denying her application for benefits.

The district court 1 granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, concluding that her decision denying benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ms. Fouts appealed, contending that the objective medical evidence, the observations of third parties, her pain medication, her functional limitations, and her daily activities are consistent with her claim of disabling pain; that the ALJ erred in considering her refusal of certain treatment; and that the ALJ's questions to a vocational expert did not properly include all her limitations. Having carefully considered the administrative record, we conclude that the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its Order of April 3, 1995. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

t0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

140578 

PASKA NUCULOVIC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140578 

 COA: 280216 

Macomb CC: 2006-003647-NI 

JOHNNY DEAN HILL and SMART BUS, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 MARILYN KELLY and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
§ 435.1007 Categorically needy, medically needy, and qualified Medicare beneficiaries. ( a ) FFP is available in expenditures for covered services provided to categorically needy beneficiaries, medically needy beneficiaries, and qualified Medicare beneficiaries, subject to the restrictions contained in subpart K of this part and as provided in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section. However, the restrictions listed in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section do not apply to expenditures for medical assistance made on behalf of qualified Medicare beneficiaries under section 1905(p) of the Act; individuals receiving Medicaid as categorically needy under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI), or (VII) and section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) (I), (IX), or (X) and section 1905(u) of the Act; individuals who are eligible to receive benefits (or would be eligible for those benefits if they were not in a medical institution); and any individuals deemed to be members of the groups identified in this sentence.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, FFP is not available in State expenditures for individuals (including the medically needy) whose annual income after deductions specified in § 435.831(a) and (c) exceeds the following amounts, rounded to the next higher multiple of $100.
( c ) In the case of a family consisting only of two individuals, both of whom are adults and at least one of whom is aged, blind, or disabled, the State of California may use the amount of the AFDC payment most frequently made to a family of one adult and two children for purposes of computing the 1331 ⁄ 3 percent limitation (under the authority of section 4106 of Public Law 100-230).
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State that as of June 1, 1989, has in its State plan (as defined in section 2373(c)(5) of Public Law 98-369 as amended by section 9 of Public Law 100-93) an amount for individuals that was reasonably related to 1331 ⁄ 3 percent of the highest amount of AFDC which would ordinarily be paid to a family of two without income or resources may use an amount based upon a reasonable relationship to such an AFDC standard for a family of two.
( e ) FFP is not available in expenditures for services provided to categorically needy and medically needy beneficiaries subject to the FFP limits if their annual income, after the cash assistance income deductions and any income disregards in the State plan authorized under section 1902(r)(2) of the Act are applied, exceeds the 1331 ⁄ 3 percent limitation described under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
( f ) A State may use the less restrictive income methodologies included under its State plan as authorized under § 435.601 in determining whether a family's income exceeds the limitation described in paragraph (b) of this section.
[58 FR 4933, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 2321, 2667, Jan. 11, 2001]
41069.

#### GEORGIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HADARITS et al.

Decided July 27, 1965.

Per. Curiam.

The judgment of this court in *Georgia Bank & Trust Co. v. Hadarits,*111 Ga. App. 195 (141 SE2d 172) having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in *Georgia Bank & Trust Co. v. Hadarits,*221 Ga. 125 (143 SE2d 627), the judgment of this court is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*The judgment of the trial courtis reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*

*144*Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Cubbedge Snow,*for plaintiff in error.

*George E. Saliba,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MTX
INTERNATIONAL, INC. SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          26,732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,265
<INVENTORY>                                     65,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,067
<PP&E>                                         211,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                 197,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,744
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,182)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,796
<SALES>                                        454,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               904,405
<CGS>                                          112,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,023,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (119,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (119,871)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – June 9, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – June 9, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

June 9, 2021

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

 

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken accompanies President Biden on travel to Cornwall, United Kingdom; Brussels, Belgium; and Geneva, Switzerland.  Please click here for more information.

**4:30 p.m.** Secretary Blinken delivers prerecorded remarks at the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS.

**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY THE UN)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

**11:00 a.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman delivers remarks at the German Marshall Fund of the United States Transatlantic Trends 2021 Virtual Event, from the Department of State

**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY HOST)**

**4:00 p.m**. Deputy Secretary Sherman meets with Republic of Korea Vice Foreign Minister Choi Jong-kun, at the Department of State

**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS PHILIP T. REEKER**

****

Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker is on travel to Tbilisi, Georgia; Baku, Azerbaijan: and Yerevan, Armenia, from June 6-13, 2021. Please click here for more information.

##### BRIEFING SCHEDULE

**2:00 p.m.**Department Press Briefing by Spokesperson Ned Price.

**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be live streamed on**www.state.gov**.*

 

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
HomeThe Ocean and Polar Affairs

# The Ocean and Polar Affairs

44 items

        -    Media Note  		Study on the People’s Republic of China’s South China Sea Maritime Claims 	  January 12, 2022 
        -    		Remarks on the Urgency of Global Climate Action	  John KerryJuly 20, 2021Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London 
        -    Media Note  		Renewal of the Charter for the Shipping Advisory Committee	  March 26, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Vice Admiral Steven Poulin, U.S. Coast Guard, and David Hogan, U.S. Department of State	  February 12, 2021 

previous page1…345

Back to Top
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. VIC TOR M ANUEL C ASTANEDAM ONTES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50329

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01103-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 4, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s a nd LEM E LLE, * * Se n ior Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUN 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theEa s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.Vic tor M anue l C a sta ne da -M onte s (“ C a sta

ne da ” ) c ha lle nge s his se nte nc e of 69 m onths following a

c onvic tion for a

tte m pte d re e ntry into theUnite d Stat e s following de

porta tion, 8 U.S.C . § 1326(a). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in a pply ing a 16-le ve l c rim e of viole nc e e nha nc e m e nt. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). C a sta ne da argue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t his c onvic tion for viola

ting a re stra ining orde r with a

n a c t of viole nc e or a c re dible thre at of viole nc e is not c at e goric a lly a c rim e of viole n c e . B ut he ha s not c ite d a

ny c a s e in whic h

sta te c ourts ha

ve a pplie d this sta tute to c onduc t tha

t doe s not riseto thefe de ra l de finition of a c rim e of viole nc e , a

n d he ha s not othe rwise shown a

“ re a listicproba

bility ” tha t the sta tute would bea

pplie d ove rbroa dly . Se eGonzale s v . Due n as-Alv are

z , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). The distric t c o urt’ s a

p p lic ation of thee nha

n c e m e nt wa s thus not pla in e rror. C a sta ne da a lso a rgue s tha t the se nte nc ing sc he m e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1326 viola te s the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. Howe ve r, the Supre m e C o urt ha s he l d othe rwise . Se eAlme ndare

z-Torre s v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). And we have pre v iously

re je c te d the argum e nt tha

t this pa rt of A lme ndare

z-Torre s wa s im plic itly ove rrule d by

subse que nt Supre m e C o urt pre c e de nt. Se eUnite d State s v . Mac ie l-Vasque

z , 458 F.3d 994, 995–96 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D.
#### ARZUMANIAN V. THE STATE.

(Decided Dec. 19, 1911.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Gonrt.

Heard before Hon. W. P. McCrossin, Special Judge.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

de Graffenbied, J.

No error in the record. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


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


nI connection with the Annual Report of Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Executive Officer and 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:

   (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 results of operations
           of the Company.

                                   /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Paul W. Mobley
                                   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                                   Officer of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                   March 11, 2008
#### ATCHISON, TOPEKA *&*SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 528 ; 256 U. S. 205.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *reversed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

In the absence of a previous arrangement with the carrier for reduced rates under Sec. 22 of the interstate commerce act, the United States, by requesting and accepting interstate railway transportation for officers and men of the Army, obligates itself to pay the rates applicable generally for like transportation, less any lawful land grant deduction.

Where the only through interstate tariff rate between two places is the individual rate, through transportation of a party should be charged at that rate and cannot lawfully be charged less by combining a party rate applicable to a part of the distance only with the individual rate applicable to the remainder.

The through individual rate, in such case, *held*the “regular tariff rate” within the meaning of a contract between the carrier and the United States for the transportation of soldiers.

Mr. Justice van DevanteR

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 18, 1921.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.630 Coordination of Medicaid with QIOs. ( a ) The State plan may provide for the review of Medicaid services through a contract with a QIO designated under part 462 of this chapter. Medicaid requirements for medical and utilization review are deemed to be met for those services or providers subject to review under the contract.
( b ) The State plan must provide that the contract with the QIO— ( 1 ) Meets the requirements of § 434.6(a) of this part;
( 2 ) Includes a monitoring and evaluation plan by which the State ensures satisfactory performance by the QIO;
( 3 ) Identifies the services and providers subject to QIO review;
( 4 ) Ensures that the review activities performed by the QIO are not inconsistent with QIO review activities of Medicare services and includes a description of whether and to what extent QIO determinations will be considered conclusive for Medicaid payment purposes.
[50 FR 15327, Apr. 17, 1985]