alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.711 Updates to plans submitted as part of the application process. ( a ) If a qualified entity wishes to make changes to the following parts of its previously-approved application: ( 1 ) Its list of proposed measures—the qualified entity must send all the information referenced in § 401.707(a) for the new measures to CMS at least 30 days before its intended confidential release to providers and suppliers.
( 2 ) Its proposed prototype report—the qualified entity must send the new prototype report to CMS at least 30 days before its intended confidential release to providers and suppliers.
( 3 ) Its plans for sharing the reports with the public—the qualified entity must send the new plans to CMS at least 30 days before its intended confidential release to providers and suppliers.
( b ) CMS will notify the qualified entity when the entity's proposed changes are approved or denied for use, generally within 30 days of the qualified entity submitting the changes to CMS. If a CMS decision on approval or disapproval for a change is not forthcoming within 30 days and CMS does not request an additional 30 days for review, the change or modification shall be deemed to be approved.
( c ) If the amount of claims data from other sources available to a qualified entity decreases, the qualified entity must immediately inform CMS and submit documentation that the remaining claims data from other sources is sufficient to address the methodological concerns regarding sample size and reliability. Under no circumstances may a qualified entity use Medicare data to create a report, use a measure, or share a report after the amount of claims data from other sources available to a qualified entity decreases until CMS determines either that the remaining claims data is sufficient or that the qualified entity has collected adequate additional data to address any deficiencies. ( 1 ) If the qualified entity cannot submit the documentation required in paragraph (c) of this section, or if CMS determines that the remaining claims data is not sufficient, CMS will afford the qualified entity up to 120 days to obtain additional claims to address any deficiencies. If the qualified entity does not have access to sufficient new data after that time, CMS will terminate its relationship with the qualified entity.
( 2 ) If CMS determines that the remaining claims data is sufficient, the qualified entity may continue issuing reports, using measures, and sharing reports.
HomeRemarks and Releases – Bureau of Political-Military Affairs...Major Non-NATO Ally Status

# 									Major Non-NATO Ally Status							

Fact Sheet

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

January 20, 2021

Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status is a designation under U.S. law [1] that provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation. The Major Non-NATO Ally designation is a powerful symbol of the close relationship the United States shares with those countries and demonstrates our deep respect for the friendship for the countries to which it is extended. While MNNA status provides military and economic privileges, it does not entail any security commitments to the designated country.

Privileges resulting from MNNA designation under 22 U.S.C. §2321k:
        - Eligible for loans of material, supplies, or equipment for cooperative research, development, testing, or evaluation purposes.
        - Eligible as a location for U.S.-owned War Reserve Stockpiles to be placed on its territory outside of U.S. military facilities.
        - Can enter into agreements with the United States for the cooperative furnishing of training on a bilateral or multilateral basis, if the financial arrangements are reciprocal and provide for reimbursement of all U.S. direct costs.
        - Eligible, to the maximum extent feasible, for priority delivery of  Excess Defense Articles  transferred under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act (if located on the southern or south-eastern flank of NATO).
        - Eligible for consideration to purchase depleted uranium ammunition.

Privileges resulting from MNNA designation under 10 U.S.C. §2350a:
        - Eligible to enter into an MOU or other formal agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense for the purpose of conducting cooperative research and development projects on defense equipment and munitions.
        - Allows firms of a MNNA, as with NATO countries, to bid on contracts for maintenance, repair or overhaul of U.S. Department of Defense equipment outside the United States.
        - Allows funding to procure explosives detection devices and other counter-terrorism research and development projects under the auspices of the Department of State’s  Technical Support Working Group .

Currently 18 countries are designated as MNNAs under 22 U.S.C. §2321k and 10 U.S.C. §2350a:
        - Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Thailand, and Tunisia.
        - In addition,  Pub. L. 107–228  provides Taiwan shall be treated as an MNNA, without formal designation as such.

*For additional information, please contact the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at pm-cpa@state.gov and follow us on Twitter @StateDeptPM.*

___________________________

[1] See relevant legislation, including but not limited to: 22 U.S.C.  §2751 , 22 U.S.C. §2321k , and 10 U.S.C. §2350a .

Tags

Bureau of Political-Military AffairsNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationPolitical-Military Cooperation

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22259]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Lamps and 
Reflective Devices

CFR Correction

    In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 399, 
revised as of October 1, 2008, in Sec.  393.11, on page 375, remove 
paragraph (d) and on page 377, revise the heading of Table 1 to read 
``Table 1 of Sec.  393.11--Required Lamps and Reflectors on Commercial 
Motor Vehicles''.
[FR Doc. E9-22259 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 28, 2014

p0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

147953

STEPHEN PORTIS,

Petitioner

- Appell ant,

v SC: 147953

Wayne CC: 13

- 007243

- AV

CITY OF TAYLOR and

MAYOR OF TAYLOR,

Respondents

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.
EX-10.30






Exhibit 10.30




Summary of the material terms of the PepsiAmericas, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan




     The Company’s named executive officers are eligible for annual incentives, payable in cash,
under the Annual Incentive Plan (the “AIP”). The AIP payout targets, which are achieved if the
Company meets certain goals set out in the annual operating plan, are approved by the Management
Resources and Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) each
year. The AIP performance measures and their weightings are also approved by the Committee each
year.



     The Committee also reviews and approves a schedule that details the required Company
performance and resulting AIP payouts for each performance measure. If the threshold performance
goals are met, AIP payouts equal at least 25% of target. The Committee maintains the discretion to
vary from the formula, either to increase or decrease an AIP payout. Actual AIP payouts, which can
vary from 0 to 200% of target, are delivered after the Company’s results are known and applied to
the AIP.
HomePeople...Dominica Gutierrez

# 				Dominica Gutierrez			

															Executive Director						Foreign Service Institute												

				July 12, 2015 -									April 2, 2021							

**Dominica Gutierrez's term ended on April 2, 2021.**
As the Foreign Service Institute’s Executive Director, Ms. Dominica Gutierrez is responsible for the development, coordination, and successful execution of management and administrative policies and business operations throughout the organization. A career member of the Senior Executive Service, Ms. Gutierrez served in several management-leadership positions at the National Science Foundation from 2011-2015 and was part of the leadership teams at two major Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies from 2003-2011. Ms. Gutierrez also has over a decade of experience in the Department of Justice from 1991-2003.

Tags
Foreign Service InstituteState 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
### AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FM), DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM).



## {{

# ,,"-- IDocket No. FAA-2010-**,u,*; Directorate Idtotifier 201o-NM-099-ADI



## v .., /11 14916-I3-PI



### Airplanes RIN 2126-AA64 

# I ' Airwortbiness Directives; Airbus Model A31 0Airplanes and Airbus Model A300-60



# I . DEPARTMENT OFTRANSpJRTA nON Federal Aviation Administratiol 14CFR Part 39

.T1 .~'

authority of another country to id~ntify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation 

### SUMMARY: Wepropose to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe product listed above that would 

### supersedelan eXiSting~. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airv.'OrthiJss 

### information (MeAl) originated by an aviation

Uncommanded movement of the pilot and co-p;lot seats during takeoff or landing caul interfere with the operation OfthJ airplane and, ~ aresult, could cause loss of control the airplane. The proposed AD 

### wluld require a4tions that are intended to address the



# I ' unsafe condition described in the 

### MeAl. 

## i fJNlJA-

## ":tIT'''.'''U 

### L~ 

# 'foh7~o "''''''''".- 

## ANI'\. -\l

# '-t

• 

# • • 

# • • 

# • • product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: Prompted by areported in-service event] EASA issued AD 2009- 0084 

### toprevent unwantedlmovement ofpilot- or co-pilot seat in the horizontal direction w~ich is considered as potentially unsafe, especially during the takeoff phase whe~ the speed of the aeroplane is greater than 1100knots and ~ntil1anding gear 

### retraction. '
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1744 

To provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. OBERSTAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MEDICARE CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL DES4 IGNATION. 

5 Section 405(h) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

6 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

7 108–173; 117 Stat. 2269) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made 

11 by paragraph (1) shall not apply to the certifi12 cation by the State of Minnesota on or after 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 1744 IH

1 January 1, 2006, under section 

2 1820(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Security Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 1395i–4(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)) of one hos4 pital that meets the criteria described in sub5 paragraph (B) and is located in Cass County, 

6 Minnesota, as a necessary provider of health 

7 care services to residents in the area of the hos8 pital. 

9 ‘‘(B) CRITERIA DESCRIBED.—A hospital 

10 meets the criteria described in this subpara11 graph if the hospital— 

12 ‘‘(i) has been granted an exception by 

13 the State to an otherwise applicable statu14 tory restriction on hospital construction or 

15 licensing prior to the date of enactment of 

16 this subparagraph; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) is located on property which the 

18 State has approved for conveyance to a 

19 county within the State prior to such date 

20 of enactment.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### § 423.258 Definitions.

For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:

*Full risk plan* means a prescription drug plan that is not a limited risk plan or a fallback prescription drug plan.

*Limited risk plan* means a prescription drug plan that provides basic prescription drug coverage and for which the PDP sponsor includes a modification of risk level described in § 423.265(d) in its bid submitted for the plan. This term does not include a fallback prescription drug plan.

*Standardized bid amount* means, for a prescription drug plan that provides basic prescription drug coverage, the PDP approved bid; for a prescription drug plan that provides supplemental prescription drug coverage, the portion of the PDP approved bid that is attributable to basic prescription drug coverage; for a MA-PD plan, the portion of the accepted bid amount that is attributable to basic prescription drug coverage.
[Cite as State v. Rogers , 2015-Ohio-3472.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100248



## STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.


## ALFRED ROGERS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



### JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-08-518986 Application for Reopening Motion No. 486377

RELEASE DATE: August 25, 2015FOR APPELLANT

Alfred Rogers, pro se Inmate No. 574184 Southern Ohio Correctional Institution P.O. Box 45699 Louisville, Ohio 45699

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶1} Alfred Rogers has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.

26(B). Rogers is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered by this court in

State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100248 (Aug. 13, 2013). For the following

reasons, Rogers’s application for reopening is not well taken.

{¶2} Initially, we find that App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to

the appeal in App. No. 100248. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Rogers’s plea

of guilty to the offense of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized

by this court. This court denied Rogers’s motion for a delayed appeal and dismissed the

appeal on September 3, 2013. Thus, we are prevented from considering Rogers’s

application for reopening. State v. Skaggs , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76301, 1999 Ohio

App. LEXIS 4680 (Sept. 21, 1999). See also State v. Loomer , 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 667

N.E.2d 1209 (1996); State v. Halliwell , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App.

LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999); State v. Fields , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68906, 1997 Ohio

App. LEXIS 4109 (Sept. 5, 1997); State v. Williams , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69936, 1996

Ohio App. LEXIS 4796 (Oct. 31, 1996).

{¶3} Finally, even if Rogers were permitted to file an application for reopening,

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Rogers establish a showing of good cause for untimely

filing if the application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the

appellate judgment, which is subject to reopening. Herein, Rogers is attempting toreopen the order of dismissal journalized on September 3, 2013. Rogers’s application for

reopening was not filed until June 9, 2015, more than 90 days after journalization of the

order of dismissal in App. No. 100248. Rogers has failed to establish good cause for the

untimely filing of his application for reopening. Thus, we would be required to deny his

application for reopening. State v. Gumm , 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814

N.E.2d 861; State v. LaMar , 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970.

{¶4} Application for reopening is denied.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Forbes Names U.S. Department of State as one of America’s Best Employers for Veterans for 2022

# 									Forbes Names U.S. Department of State as one of America’s Best Employers for Veterans for 2022							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 9, 2022

Forbes, in partnership with Statista, has named the U.S. Department of State as one of America’s Best Employers for Veterans for 2022.

The Forbes list of Best Employers for Veterans was determined via an independent survey by Statistica that included approximately 7,000 U.S. veterans working for companies employing at least 1,000 people within the United States. Participants were asked to give their opinions on a series of general topics, such as: atmosphere and development, image, working conditions, salary and wage, workplace, diversity, and a set of topics related specifically to the interests of veterans in the workplace.

The Department of State is delighted to be recognized on the Forbes list of American’s Best Employers for Veterans 2022. Over the past year, the Department became an official authorized partner with the Department of Defense’s SkillBridge program to host active-duty service members, welcomed veterans from the 8th cohort of the Veteran Innovation Partnership (VIP) Fellowship program, and established a Veteran Support Program to support its nearly 5,400 military veteran employees.

Further information about the survey can be found on the Forbes website at: https://www.forbes.com/lists/best-employers-for-veterans/.

To learn more about Foreign and Civil Service careers, internships, and fellowships visit http://careers.state.gov or download the DOSCareers mobile app in the Apple and Google Play stores.

Tags

CareersCivil ServiceForeign ServiceOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
No. 00-5556.

#### Rawlins *v.*United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*

Justice Stevens dissents.

See *id.,*at 4, and cases cited therein.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Maldives Independence Day

# 									Maldives Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

July 25, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Maldives on your Independence Day this July 26th.

As you celebrate this important day, Maldives has many reasons to be proud. Your country is a strong supporter of democratic values and an important voice in maintaining the international rules-based order.

The relationship between the United States and Maldives is based on shared values of democracy, sovereignty, and prosperity.

Our ties continue to deepen, most notably through the re-establishment of the Maldivian embassy in Washington, DC. I was particularly pleased to welcome Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid last month to discuss ways to strengthen our partnership in critical economic and social areas.

May our two nations’ friendship continue to grow into the future. Congratulations again on your Independence Day.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDemocracyMaldivesOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateSovereignty

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 488.20 Periodic review of compliance and approval. ( a ) Determinations by CMS to the effect that a provider or supplier is in compliance with the conditions of participation, or requirements (for SNFs and NFs), or the conditions for coverage are made as often as CMS deems necessary and may be more or less than a 12-month period, except for SNFs, NFs and HHAs. (See § 488.308 for special rules for SNFs and NFs.)
( b ) The responsibilities of State survey agencies in the review and certification of compliance are as follows: ( 1 ) Resurvey providers or suppliers as frequently as necessary to ascertain compliance and confirm the correction of deficiencies;
( 2 ) Review reports prepared by a Professional Standards Review Organization (authorized under Part B Title XI of the Act) or a State inspection of care team (authorized under Title XIX of the Act) regarding the quality of a facility's care;
( 3 ) Evaluate reports that may pertain to the health and safety of patients; and
( 4 ) Take appropriate actions that may be necessary to achieve compliance or certify noncompliance to CMS.
( c ) A State survey agency certification to CMS that a provider or supplier is no longer in compliance with the conditions of participation or requirements (for SNFs and NFs) or conditions for coverage will supersede the State survey agency's previous certification.
(Secs. 1102, 1814, 1861, 1863 through 1866, 1871, and 1881; 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395f, 1395x, 1395z through 1395cc, 1395hh, and 1395rr)
[45 FR 74833, Nov. 12, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 53 FR 23100, June 17, 1988, and further amended at 54 FR 5373, Feb. 2, 1989; 56 FR 48879, Sept. 26, 1991; 59 FR 56237, Nov. 10, 1994]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2176/2004

of 17 December 2004         

concerning the 73rd special invitation to tender issued under the standing invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 73rd individual invitation to tender pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 14 December 2004, no award shall be made.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 340, 31.12.1999, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1839/2004 (OJ L 322, 23.10.2004, p. 4).

----