alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 412.256 Application requirements. ( a ) *Written application.* A request for reclassification must be in writing and must constitute a complete application in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. ( 1 ) An application must be submitted to the MGCRB according to the method prescribed by the MGCRB.
( 2 ) A complete application must be received not later than the first day of the 13-month period preceding the Federal fiscal year for which reclassification is requested.
( 3 ) The filing date of an application is the date the application is received by the MGCRB.
( b ) *Criteria for a complete application.* An application is complete if the application from an individual hospital or from all hospitals in a county includes the following information: ( 1 ) The Federal fiscal year for which the hospital is applying for redesignation.
( 2 ) Which criteria constitute the basis of the request for reclassification.
( 3 ) An explanation of how the hospital or hospitals meet the relevant criteria in §§ 412.230 through 412.236, including any necessary data to support the application.
( c ) *Opportunity to complete a submitted application.* ( 1 ) The MGCRB will review an application within 15 days of receipt to determine if the application is complete. If the MGCRB determines that an application is incomplete, the MGCRB will notify the hospital, with a copy to CMS, within the 15 day period, that it has determined that the application is incomplete and may dismiss the application if a complete application is not filed by September 1.
( 2 ) At the request of the hospital, the MGCRB may, for good cause, grant a hospital that has submitted an application by September 1, an extension beyond September 1 to complete its application.
( d ) *Appeal of MGCRB dismissal.* ( 1 ) The hospital may appeal the MGCRB dismissal to the Administrator within 15 days of the date of the notice of dismissal.
( 2 ) Within 20 days of receipt of the hospital's request for appeal, the Administrator will affirm the dismissal or reverse the dismissal and remand the case to the MGCRB to determine whether reclassification is appropriate.
( e ) *Notification of complete application.* When the MGCRB determines that the hospital's application contains all the necessary elements for a complete application, it notifies the hospital in writing, with a copy to CMS, that the application is complete and that the case may proceed to an MGCRB decision.
[55 FR 36766, Sept. 6, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 25488, June 4, 1991; 62 FR 46031, Aug. 29, 1997; 63 FR 26357, May 12, 1998; 64 FR 41541, July 30, 1999; 81 FR 57268, Aug. 22, 2016; 84 FR 42614, Aug. 16, 2019]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60468 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY N. MYLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CR-99-1-BN

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny N. Myles appealed his jury-trial conviction for

possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, arguing that

the district court erred by allowing the Government to crossexamine him regarding a prior conviction. Finding that the

district court had failed to make an on-the-record finding that

the probative value of the prior conviction outweighed its

prejudicial effect, this court remanded the case to the district 
No. 98-60468

- 2 -

court. On remand, the district court made such finding and held

that the conviction properly was admitted. Myles argues that the

district court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion.

 We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM 

essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. See

United States v. Myles, No. 3:95-CR-99-1-BN (S.D. Miss.; May 23,

1997).

 AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.41


 


UTSTARCOM,
INC.


 


AMENDMENT TO PETER
BLACKMORE OFFER LETTER


 


Peter Blackmore (“Employee”) and UTStarcom, Inc.
(the “Company”, and together with
Employee, the “Parties”) desire to amend an
offer letter between the Parties dated May 18, 2007 and amended October 25,
2007 (the “Offer Letter”) to bring the
Offer Letter into documentary compliance with Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)
and the final regulations and official guidance promulgated thereunder (together,
“Section 409A”), for good and
valuable consideration, as follows:


 


1.             Disability.  The following paragraph will be added below
the paragraph entitled “Cash Payment Award”:


 


“Disability.  For purposes of this offer letter, “disability”
will be defined as (i) your inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months, or (ii) you
are, by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months, receiving income
replacement benefits for a period of not less than three (3) months under
any accident or health plan covering employees of UTStarcom.”


 


2.             Entire Agreement.  This Amendment to Peter Blackmore Offer
Letter (the “Amendment”) and the Offer
Letter constitute the full and entire understanding and agreement between the
Parties with regard to the subjects hereof and thereof.  This Amendment may be amended at any time
only by mutual written agreement of the Parties.


 


3.             Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts,
all of which together shall constitute one instrument, and each of which may be
executed by less than all of the parties to this Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties
has executed this Amendment, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized
officer, as of the 17th day of December 2008.


 


 


	
   

  	
  UTSTARCOM, INC.

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Mark Green

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Peter Blackmore

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  Mark Green

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  SVP, Worldwide Human Resources and Real Estate
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **June 1998**
|--------------------------- | -------------



---

### TABLE 6
Average Interest Rate for Home Construction Financing



---

`******************************************************************`

### TABLE 7 
National Percent of HUD Offices Reporting Adequate Construction Funds Available for Homes



---

`Data as of: June 1, 1998                       HQE: 7-02-98


HSG/FHA Home Page | Reports Menu | Email Us



Date Last Modified: 07/02/98`
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Presidential Documents 47433 

Presidential Determination No. 2009–28 of September 11, 2009 

Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Commerce[,] the Secretary of Labor[, 

and] the United States Trade Representative 

On July 9, 2009, the United States International Trade Commission(USITC) 

submitted a report to me that contained a determination pursuant to its 

investigation under section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 

(the ‘‘Trade Act’’), that certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from 

the People’s Republic of China (China) are being imported into the United 

States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause 

or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like 

or directly competitive products. 

By proclamation I have issued today (the ‘‘proclamation’’), and after considering all relevant aspects of the investigation, I have proclaimed actions 

of the type described in section 421(a) of the Trade Act. I have determined 

that the most appropriate action is application of an additional duty on 

imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, as 

defined in paragraph 4 of the proclamation. I have also determined that 

such action shall be in effect for a period of 3 years. 

Specifically, I have proclaimed an additional duty on imports of the products 

described in paragraph 4 of the proclamation, which for the first year shall 

be in the amount of 35 percent ad valorem above the column 1 general 

rate of duty. For the second year, the additional duty shall be in the amount 

of 30 percent ad valorem above the column 1 general rate of duty, and 

in the third year, the additional duty shall be in the amount of 25 percent 

ad valorem above the column 1 general rate of duty. 

In order to assist workers, firms, and their communities that have been 

or are affected by the market disruption, I direct the Secretary of Commerce 

and the Secretary of Labor to expedite consideration of any Trade Adjustment 

Assistance applications received from domestic passenger vehicle and light 

truck tire producers, their workers, or communities and to provide such 

other requested assistance or relief as they deem appropriate, consistent 

with their statutory mandates. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
47434 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Presidential Documents 

The United States Trade Representative is authorized and directed to publish 

this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 11, 2009 

[FR Doc. E9–22409 

Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3190–01–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULESOB#1.EPS</GPH>
Second Amendment to Boston Properties, Inc. Senior Executive Severance Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.52 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 

BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. 
 SENIOR
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN 
  
 A. The Boston Properties, Inc. Senior Executive
Severance Plan, as adopted as of July 30, 1998 (the “Plan”), as subsequently amended, is further amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and substituting therefor the following: 
  
 “Such amount shall be paid in one lump sum payment no later than
thirty-one (31) days following the Date of Termination; provided, however, that if the Change in Control does not constitute a change in the ownership or effective control of the Company, or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the
assets of the Company, within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, such amount shall be paid in equal installments in accordance with the Company’s then payroll practice over a twelve (12) month period beginning with the first
payroll date that occurs thirty (30) days after the Date of Termination. Solely for purposes of Section 409A of the Code, each installment payment is considered a separate payment.” 
  
 2. The Plan is hereby further amended by adding the following sentence
immediately following the first sentence of Section 16: 
  
 “If any such delayed cash payment is otherwise payable on an installment basis, the first payment shall include a catch-up payment covering amounts that would otherwise have been paid during the six-month period but for the application
of this provision, and the balance of the installments shall be payable in accordance with their original schedule.” 
  
 B. Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment has been
executed on behalf of the Company by its duly authorized officer this 15th day of December, 2008. 
  

					
	 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ E. Mitchell Norville

		 	 Name:
	 	 E. Mitchell Norville

		 	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President,
 Chief Operating Officer



  

 2
#### General State Authority v. James

*Hopkin T. Rowlands*and *Allen M. Khtger,*for plaintiffs.

*Donald O. Coughlin,*for defendant.

September 19, 1955.

PiNOLA, J.,

This matter is before us on a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance of a written. option agreement to which defendants filed preliminary objections. Following a court decision on those objections, plaintiff amended its complaint. Now defendants ask for judgment on the pleadings. Pa. R. C. P. 1034, specifically declares that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed only after the pleadings are closed; here they are not closed. The complaint is the only pleading filed to date.

Were it not for the fact that all preliminary objec*758tions must be made at one time (Pa. R. C. P. 1028 *(b))*we might consider the motion as a demurrer. However, this motion raises a point which could have been raised against the original complaint and defendants waived it by not then raising it.

We are, therefore, required to enter the following

*Order*

Defendant’s motion for judgment is denied.
§ 436.217 Individuals receiving home and community-based services. The agency may provide Medicaid to any group or groups of individuals in the community who meet the following requirements: ( a ) The group would be eligible for Medicaid if institutionalized.
( b ) In the absence of home and community-based services under a waiver granted under part 441— ( 1 ) Subpart G of this subchapter, the group would otherwise require the level of care furnished in a hospital, NF, or an ICF/IID; or
( 2 ) Subpart H of this subchapter, the group would otherwise require the level of care furnished in a NF and are age 65 or older.
( c ) The group receives the waivered services.
[57 FR 29155, June 30, 1992]
HomeStatus Lists for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...Pollution Status Lists

# 						Pollution Status Lists					

1 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year1972

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypeDepositary – Treaty Affairs

          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, done at London, Mexico City, Moscow and Washington December 29, 1972	   

Back to Top
#### Charlotte Jean MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. Kenneth R. MATTHEWS, Appellee.

No. 79-1496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1979.

Gary S. Gostel, Miami, for appellant.

Marks & Leinoff and Allan B. Marks, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court changed custody from a mother to a father, and altered support payments without prior pleadings or notice. This is error. See: *Cortina v. Cortina,*98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957); *Scheer v. Scheer,*132 So.2d 456 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); *Purvis v. Carter,*303 So.2d 681 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); *485
      *Childress v. Childress,*309 So.2d 581 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Kranis v. Kranis,*313 So.2d 135 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Smithwick v. Smithwick,*343 So.2d 945 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Kaken v. Neubauer,*374 So.2d 49 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).

The order dated July 17, 1979, so far as it purported to change custody and alter support payments, be and the same is hereby reversed.

Reversed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1214 Conflict of interest safeguards.

The State must have in effect safeguards against conflict of interest in accordance with the terms of § 438.58 of this chapter, except that references to § 438.54(b) should be read to refer to the enrollment processes described in § 457.1210(a).

[82 FR 40, Jan. 3, 2017]
PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE

HOFFMAN BUILDING 1, ROOM 836

2461 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22331-1300

PDTATAC/tlw/U99021/C99016 2 July 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EDITOR

SUBJECT: Editorial Changes to the JFTR/JTR

1. It is requested that the JFTR/JTR Appendix O be revised as follows: Please add a footnote [2]

to the National Security Agency (NSA) in Fort Meade, Maryland to the DoD Components

authorized to use Appendix O, effective 1 March 1996, that reads:

“[2] This includes TDY travel by, on the behalf of, and/or processed by the NSA.”

2. It is requested that these revisions appear in printed change number 153 of the JFTR, and 407

of the JTR, effective 1 September 1999.

W. B. Tirrell, Sr.

Chief, Travel and Transportation Branch

cc:

MAP Members

CAP Members

T. Lynn Wawrzyniak ______________ COL Westbrook __________________

Copy of Editorial Submitted to PDC Editor: 2 July 1999

SYNOPSIS:

This editorial adds a footnote to NSA in Appendix O to allow the commands that they process

travel claims for or on their behalf to use Appendix O.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000728389
<NAME>                        NATIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                          9,341,000
<SECURITIES>                    498,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   9,467,000
<ALLOWANCES>                    293,000
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                19,544,000
<PP&E>                          962,000
<DEPRECIATION>                  585,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  25,269,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,503,000
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        6,000
<OTHER-SE>                      23,754,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    25,269,000
<SALES>                         17,903,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                17,903,000
<CGS>                           11,574,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   4,699,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                (911,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              274,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 993,000
<INCOME-TAX>                    444,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    549,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.10
        



</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20283 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. A D E L S O N N A P O L E O N AV E N D A N O , al so kn ow n as A del son N
. A ven da n o, al s o kno w n a s N ap o l e o n Ave nda no Ade l s o n, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U S D C N o . 4 :08 -C R -1 9 7 -1
B ef ore K IN G , JO L L Y , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Appe al i ng t he j udg m e nti n a c r i m i nalc as e , Ade l s o n N ap o l e o n Ave nda no r ai se s ar gum ent s t hat ar e f or ec l os ed by Un itedS ta tes v. L o p ez -O rtiz , 313 F. 3d 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 -31 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ), w h i ch h eld t h a t a n i m m i gr a ti on j u d ge ’ s fai l u re to in fo r m a n a lie n o f h is e lig ib i l i t y fo rd is c r e tio n a r yw a iv e ro f r e m o v a l a t h is
r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in gd id n o t r e n d e rth e p r o c e e d in gfu n d a m e n ta llyu n fa ir
. S ee R om ero- R od rigu ez v. G on zal es , 4 88 F. 3d 6 72 , 6 77 n. 5 ( 5th C i r . 2 00 7)
. The United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20283

ap pe l l ant ’ s uno ppo s e d m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y di s po s i t i o n i s G RA N TE D , a nd t he j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.
§ 52c.6 Expenditure of grant funds. ( a ) Any funds granted pursuant to this part shall be expended solely for the purposes for which the funds were granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicable cost principles prescribed by 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
( b ) The Secretary may permit unobligated grant funds remaining in the grant account at the close of a budget period to be carried forward for obligation during a subsequent budget period, provided a continuation award is made for that period and the Secretary's written approval is obtained. The amount of any subsequent award will take into consideration unobligated grant funds remaining in the grant account.
[45 FR 12246, Feb. 25, 1980; 45 FR 20096, Mar. 27, 1980; 45 FR 68392, Oct. 15, 1980; 81 FR 3008, Jan. 20, 2016]
Order entered March 1 3 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00075 - CR WINTER KAY ARTHUR, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County C ourt at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16 - 30605 - CC2 - M



### O RDER This appeal is REINSTATED

. Pursuant to the Court’s January 22, 2019 order, the trial court has filed findings of fact and a conclusion of law regarding the two

- part video exhibit filed in the appellate record as “Amend State’s Exhibit 4.” Among its findings, the trial court f inds that Part 001 of amended State’s Exhibit 4 was played to the jury while Part 002 was not. The trial court conclude s that Part 002 of amended Sta te’s Exhibit 4 was not admitted into evidence or played to the jury. The trial court recommend s that th e Court grant the State’s November 27, 2018 motion to correct the amended reporter’s record and that we strike Part 002 of amended State’s Exhibit 4. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings, conclusion, and recommendation as stated above.– 2

–

We GRANT the portion of the State’s November 27, 2018 motion seeking to correct the amended reporter’s record. We STRIKE “Amend State’s Exhibit 4 Part 002” from the record on appeal.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE