alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S. A. Hall v. The State.

*No. 836.*

*Decided February 24th, 1897.*

Local Option—Blind Tiger—Information—Sufficiency of.

To be sufficient an information for a violation of local option, by running a “blind tiger,” must allege, that a local option election had been held in the prohibited district; that the County Commissioners’ Court had declared the result, and that publication was made to put the same in force; otherwise, the information is fatally defective. Following, Stewart v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep., 392.

Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. Thomas F. Nash.

Appeal from a conviction for violation of local option; penalty, a fine of $100 and two months’ imprisonment in the county jail.

No statement necessary.

*Miller & Williams,*for appellant.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the local option law and appeals. Omitting the formal allegations, the information charges that defendant “did unlawfully, in the town of Lancaster, keep and run, and was interested in keeping and running, a blind tiger, the same being a place then and there situate where intoxicating liquors were sold by device, whereby the person selling and delivering the intoxicating liquors was concealed from the person buying and receiving the same; the sale of intoxicating liquors-in said town of Lancaster having been theretofore, and was then, prohibited in said town of Lancaster by the law of said State.” This is the first count in the indictment. .The second count defectively seeks to charge an ordinary violation of the local option law, by selling intoxicating liquors. Ap*220pellant was convicted under the first count. This information is fatally defective. It will be observed from an inspection of it that it nowhere alleges that the election was ever held in said town of Lancaster, or that the Commissioners’ Court had declared the result, or that publication was ever made in order to put the same in force. These matters are necessary averments in an indictment or information charging a violation of the local option law. This same question was decided in Stewart v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep., 392; and also see, Alford v. State (Tex. Crim. App.), 35 S. W. Rep., 657. The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

*Ordered Dismissed.*
§ 493.561 Denial of application or reapplication. ( a ) *Reconsideration of denial.* ( 1 ) If CMS denies a request for approval, an accreditation organization or State licensure program may request, within 60 days of the notification of denial, that CMS reconsider its original application or application for renewal, in accordance with part 488, subpart D.
( 2 ) If the accreditation organization or State licensure program requests a reconsideration of CMS's determination to deny its request for approval or reapproval, it may not submit a new application until CMS issues a final reconsideration determination.
( b ) *Resubmittal of a request for approval—accreditation organization.* An accreditation organization may resubmit a request for approval if a final reconsideration determination is not pending and the accreditation program meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) It has revised its accreditation program to address the rationale for denial of its previous request.
( 2 ) It demonstrates that it can provide reasonable assurance that its accredited facilities meet condition-level requirements.
( 3 ) It resubmits the application in its entirety.
( c ) *Resubmittal of request for approval—State licensure program.* The State licensure program may resubmit a request for approval if a final reconsideration determination is not pending and it has taken the necessary action to address the rationale for any previous denial.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Fellowships
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of the Science and Technology Adviser...Fellowships – Office of the Science and Technology Adviser

# 									Fellowships							

Office of the Science and Technology Adviser

## Jefferson Science Fellowship Program

On October 8, 2003, the Secretary of State announced the Jefferson Science Fellowship as an innovative model for engaging the American academic science, technology, engineering, and medical communities in U.S. foreign policy and international development. The fellowship program brings tenured professors to work at the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for one year, and the fellows may remain available as consultants to their host offices or bureaus after returning to their academic institutions. Since 2003, more than 180 fellows have served at either the U.S. Department of State or USAID. This program is facilitated by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

## American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science & Technology Policy Fellowships Program

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science & Technology Policy Fellowship  provides opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn first-hand about policymaking while contributing their knowledge and analytical skills in the federal policy realm. The aim is to foster scientifically informed, evidence-based policy and practice by engaging scientists and engineers from a broad range of disciplines, backgrounds, and career stages to directly contribute their knowledge and analytical skills to the federal government.

The inaugural 1973 class included just seven fellows serving in congressional offices. The program grew to over 280 fellows in 2020 and over 2,500 alumni who have worked at over 20 executive branch agencies and departments and many congressional offices and committees.

## Professional Science & Engineering Society Fellowship Programs

The Professional Science & Engineering (S&E) Society Fellows Program enlists professional scientists and engineers with an interest in policy and international affairs to advance the diplomacy and development policies of the United States. Established in 2001 by STAS to support the goal of strengthening S&T expertise in the U.S. Department of state, fellows contribute their respective subject matter expertise to the policymaking process by working directly in an office at the Department.

Fellows are members of the sponsoring societies, which currently include the American Institute of Physics (AIP),  the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Salaries and benefits are paid by the societies for the year that fellows serve at the Department.

Tags

ScienceTechnology

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Passing of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

# 									Passing of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 9, 2021

On behalf of the American people, I wish to offer my deepest condolences to the royal family and the people of the United Kingdom on the passing of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

His Royal Highness embodied an uncompromising sense of duty to country, from his time in service during World War II to his decades serving the British people alongside Queen Elizabeth II.  He was a true friend to the United States.  We honor his memory and will remember his dedication to duty and friendship for years to come.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
#### § 64.5 How are grant applications evaluated?

The Secretary shall evaluate applications through the officers and employees, experts, consultants, or groups engaged by the Secretary for that purpose. The Secretary's evaluation will be for technical merit and shall take into account, among other pertinent factors, the significance of the project, the qualifications and competency of the project director and proposed staff, the adequacy of selection criteria for trainees for the project, the adequacy of the applicant's resources available for the project, and the amount of grant funds necessary for completion of its objectives.
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


      In connection with the quarterly report of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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
     for the periods presented.

                                       /s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       ----------------------------
                                       C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                       November 14, 2003
<PAGE>



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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 12, 2004

/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
-----------------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
Chief Executive Officer



                                       19
###### 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.

#### § 457.1224 Marketing activities.

The State must ensure, through its contracts, that each MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, and PCCM entity follows the requirements related to marketing activities in accordance with the terms of § 438.104 of this chapter, except § 438.104(c) of this chapter related to state agency review does not apply.
Form of Amendment of Restricted Stock Agreements 2005 - 2007



 Exhibit 10.3.1 
 [GrafTech International Ltd. Letterhead] 
 December     , 2008 
 [Restricted Stock holder address] 
 Re:    Unilateral Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement(s) for 409A 
 Dear [Restricted Stock holder]: 
 As you may know, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code changed the tax treatment of deferred compensation, which includes certain severance benefits, such as
those benefits that may be payable to you under your employment agreement with GrafTech International Ltd. All nonqualified deferred compensation plans are required to be in documentary compliance with Section 409A by December 31, 2008.
Failure to comply with Section 409A results in immediate taxation of amounts intended to be deferred, penalties, and an additional 20 percent excise tax, all of which are payable by the employee. 
 Accordingly, below are changes made to your outstanding awards of restricted stock granted pursuant to any Restricted Stock Agreement (i.e., pursuant to which any shares
of restricted stock remain unvested as of December 31, 2008) (each, an “Agreement”) in accordance with the terms of the GrafTech International Ltd. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) intended to alleviate any risk that
your agreement(s) is not in compliance with Section 409A. Any capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in an Agreement. The amendments to your Agreement(s) follow: 
  

	•	 	 Section 4.1 is hereby amended to provide that any Restricted Shares granted to you pursuant to the Agreement shall be delivered to you in no event later than
two and one half months following the end of the calendar year in which such Restricted Shares vest. 


  

	•	 	 Article V is hereby amended to eliminate the ability of GrafTech to suspend or extend vesting of the Restricted Shares. 


 Please note that the changes are solely to avoid any penalties under Section 409A. The changes are administrative in nature and do not reduce your rights or
benefits under your Agreement. Please keep this document with your records as it is now a part of your Agreement(s). 
 If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me. 
 Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,416
<SECURITIES>                                     3,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                       196
<INVENTORY>                                     13,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,459
<PP&E>                                          13,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,351
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,797)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,310
<SALES>                                         17,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,346
<CGS>                                            9,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    655
<INCOME-TAX>                                       231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        


</TABLE>
Amendment to Amended and Restated 1990 Unisys Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Amendment to 
 1990 Unisys Long-Term Incentive Plan 
 Effective February 12, 2009 
 The 1990 Unisys Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended,
effective February 12, 2009, as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 11.9(a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

 11.9 Adjustments to Reflect Capital Changes. 
 (a) Recapitalization. The number and kind of shares
subject to outstanding Awards, the Purchase Price or Exercise Price for such shares, and the number and kind of shares available for Awards subsequently granted under the Plan shall be proportionately adjusted to reflect any stock dividend, stock
split, combination or exchange of shares, merger, consolidation or other change in capitalization with a similar substantive effect upon the Plan or the Awards granted under the Plan, consistent with the treatment of shares of Company Common Stock
not subject to the Plan, and with respect to Options and Stock Appreciation Rights, such that (1) on an aggregate basis, the excess of the Fair Market Value of the shares of Company Common Stock subject to such Options or Stock Appreciation
Rights over the Purchase Price or Exercise Price, respectively, for such shares (the “Spread”) immediately after the change does not exceed the Spread immediately before the change, (2) on a share by share basis, the ratio of the Fair
Market Value of the shares of Company Common Stock subject to such Options or Stock Appreciation Rights to the Purchase Price or Exercise Price, respectively, for such shares is not more favorable to the Participant immediately after the change as
compared to such ratio immediately before the change, (3) to the extent new Options or Stock Appreciation Rights are granted, any old, related Options or Stock Appreciation Rights shall be cancelled, (4) all other terms of the Options or
Stock Appreciation Rights remain the same except to the extent they become inoperative by reason of the transaction, and (5) no additional benefits are provided under any new or adjusted Options or Stock Appreciation Rights. 
  

	2.	Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
41669.

#### WINFORD v. THE STATE.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilty of the crime of which she was accused. The accusation alleged that the defendant “did unlawfully keep, maintain, employ and carry on a certain scheme and device for the hazarding of money . . . known as and called ‘Bolita.’ ” By *Code*§ 26-6502 this is made a crime.

There was testimony of the following facts: Officers had had the defendant’s house under surveillance and noticed an unusual amount of traffic and some people going in who had been involved in Bolita. Officers procured a warrant and went to the house and gained entrance after waiting about .7 minutes. This was in August and the house was not air conditioned, and all the doors and windows were closed. In the house were the defendant, an 8-year-old boy and an elderly woman who said she had come there to see about going to a clinic. The defendant in her statement said the officers had come to her home. While in the house an officer answered the telephone and over a period of 1% to 2 hours took several calls and received numbers for Bolita. The callers asked for Dorothy. One of them left an order for “Dot.” The defendant would not answer the telephone. While the officers were there a person started into the house and was caught running away. He stated that he had come there to see about some sewing, and he had a book in his pocket containing Bolita. The officers described the operation of Bolita and identified it as a game for the hazarding of money.

This evidence differs from that in the cases relied on by this defendant where the defendant was merely present or arrested in a house where he did not live, or the defendant was a married woman living with her husband at the place where evidence of a Bolita operation was found, and the evidence was held insufficient to support a conviction. See *894
      *Bailey v. State,*60 Ga. App. 556 (4 SE2d 409); *Jones v. State,*64 Ga. App. 308 (13 SE2d 91); *Ball v. State,*72 Ga. App. 45 (32 SE2d 912); *Hendricks v. State,*73 Ga. App. 481 (37 SE2d 169); *Fleming v. State,*95 Ga. App. 3 (96 SE2d 554); *Chandler v. State,*63 Ga. App. 304 (11 SE2d 103); *Goss v. State,*82 Ga. App. 533 (61 SE2d 570).

Argued January 5, 1966

Decided January 18, 1966.

*B. Clarence Mayfield,*for appellant.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Tom A. Edenfield,*for appellee.

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds. *Thomas v. State,*118 Ga. 774 (45 SE 622); *Marshman v. State,*88 Ga. App. 250 (76 SE2d 443); *Williams v. State,*111 Ga. App. 672 (143 SE2d 19).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
#### § 488.300 Statutory basis.

Sections 1819 and 1919 of the Act establish requirements for surveying SNFs and NFs to determine whether they meet the requirements for participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rose Marie CLARK.

No. 64715.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Rose Marie Clark, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Natchitoches. Nos. 42,445 and 42,446.

This matter consolidated with appeal.
#### Vivian LIVEO, as Trustee, now known as Vivian Liveo Cerasuolo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Steven J. HORVATH, as Trustee, Appellee.

No. 74-1522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 23, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
§ 57.2003 Determinations of increased enrollment solely for the program. In the event the Secretary of Defense decides to enter into one or more contracts under 10 U.S.C. 2127(d), his determination as to whether an institution has increased its total enrollment in any fiscal year for the sole purpose of accepting members of the program will take into account the following considerations: ( a ) A comparison of the total enrollment in said fiscal year with the total enrollments in immediately preceding fiscal years;
( b ) Any increases in enrollment to which the institution has directly or indirectly committed itself in said fiscal year under: ( 1 ) Other Federal programs, such as those set forth in title VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 *et seq.*), the Veterans' Administration Medical School Assistance and Health Manpower Training Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-541, 86 Stat. 1100 (38 U.S.C. 5070 *et seq.*)) and section 225 of the Public Health Service Act (sec. 5, Pub. L. 92-585, 86 Stat. 1293 (42 U.S.C. 234));
( 2 ) programs of State or local governments or other public or private agencies, or
( 3 ) any legally binding arrangement: *Provided,* That insofar as a single increase may be applied to satisfy the commitments under two or more programs and/or other arrangements, said increase shall be considered to meet all such commitments;
( c ) Any unusual factors, such as: ( 1 ) An institution having been newly established or
( 2 ) an institution experiencing what is for it an abnormal rate of attrition and/or admission.
- Office Home
- About
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- IRF Reports
- Religious Freedom Designations
- Ministerial
- Alliance

HomeOffice of International Religious Freedom...Key Topics – Office of International Religious Freedom

# 									Key Topics							

Office of International Religious Freedom

-  Key Topics-  														Engaging Faith-Based Actors																											 
-  														Frequently Asked Questions: IRF Report and Countries of Particular Concern																											 
-  														Defining Antisemitism																											 
-  														Legislation																											 
-  														Notice of Funding Opportunity																											 
-  														International Religious Freedom Awards																											 
 

Back to Top