alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 488.331 Informal dispute resolution. ( a ) *Opportunity to refute survey findings.* ( 1 ) For non-Federal surveys, the State must offer a facility an informal opportunity, at the facility's request, to dispute survey findings upon the facility's receipt of the official statement of deficiencies.
( 2 ) For Federal surveys, CMS offers a facility an informal opportunity, at the facility's request, to dispute survey findings upon the facility's receipt of the official statement of deficiencies.
( 3 ) For SNFs, dually-participating SNF/NFs, and NF-only facilities that have civil money penalties imposed by CMS that will be placed in a CMS escrow account, CMS also offers the facility an opportunity for independent informal dispute resolution, subject to the terms of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section and of § 488.431. The facility must request independent informal dispute resolution in writing within 10 days of receipt of CMS's offer. However, a facility may not use the dispute resolution processes at both §§ 488.331 and 488.431 for the same deficiency citation arising from the same survey unless the informal dispute resolution process at § 488.331 was completed prior to the imposition of the civil money penalty.
( b ) ( 1 ) Failure of the State or CMS, as appropriate, to complete informal dispute resolution timely cannot delay the effective date of any enforcement action against the facility.
( 2 ) A facility may not seek a delay of any enforcement action against it on the grounds that informal dispute resolution has not been completed before the effective date of the enforcement action.
( c ) If a provider is subsequently successful, during the informal dispute resolution process, at demonstrating that deficiencies should not have been cited, the deficiencies are removed from the statement of deficiencies and any enforcement actions imposed solely as a result of those cited deficiencies are rescinded.
( d ) *Notification.* Upon request, CMS does and the State must provide the facility with written notification of the informal dispute resolution process.
[59 FR 56238, Nov. 10, 1994, as amended at 76 FR 15126, Mar. 18, 2011]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – March 11, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – March 11, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

March 11, 2024

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Jamaica on March 11, 2024.

**2:40 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness in Kingston, Jamaica.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**5:20 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in a High Level Meeting on Haiti in Kingston, Jamaica.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY OF OPENING REMARKS)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY KURT M. CAMPBELL**

**10:45 a.m.** Deputy Secretary Campbell meets with Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Masataka Okano at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**6:00 p.m.** Deputy Secretary Campbell delivers remarks at the Strengthening International Partnership Opportunities Reception for U.S. mayors and foreign diplomats at Blair House.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

**1:15 p.m. **Deputy Secretary Verma participates in the Department Press Briefing to discuss the Fiscal Year 2025 Department of State and USAID Budget Request at the Department of State.(**OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

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

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELIZABETH M. ALLEN**

Under Secretary Allen is on travel to Texas from March 10-12, 2024.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

Under Secretary Zeya is on travel to Canada from March 11-12, 2024.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS JAMES O’BRIEN**

**12:45 p.m. **Assistant Secretary O’Brien meets with European Union Ambassador to the United States Jovita Neliupšienė in Washington, D.C.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**1:15 p.m. **Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Matthew Miller.(**OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be streamed live on the ****Department homepage**** and ****YouTube Channel***.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Duddy v. Conshohocken Printing Company

(No. 2)

*Harry*J. *Alker, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Wright, Mauck, Hawes & Spencer,*for defendant.

June 11, 1954.

Corson, J.,

In connection with the merger of two corporations plaintiff, a dissenting stockholder, proceeded under the Business Corporation Law of May 5, 1933, P. L. 364, sec. 908, 15 PS §2852-908-, to have the value of his 10 shares of stock appraised. After two appeals to the Superior Court the value of the stock was finally fixed and defendant corporation directed to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plaintiff, by the present petition and rule, seeks to have the expenses of certain expert witnesses taxed as part of the costs of the case. Defendant, respondent in the rule, is willing to have the witness fees of such alleged expert witnesses taxed at the amount provided for ordinary witnesses, but objects to any higher amount being allowed. The printing company relies *403upon the Act of July 21, 1941, P. L. 425, sec. 9, 28 PS §416.9, which reads as follows:

“Expert witnesses; witness from another state. Nothing herein contained shall affect the right of a witness who gives expert testimony to receive additional per diem compensation therefor not taxable as costs, nor shall it affect the compensation of a witness from another state who appears to testify in a criminal prosecution in this Commonwealth by virtue of a subpoena issued by a judge of such other state.”

Under the literal wording of this act, it would seem that defendant’s contention must be sustained. However, under the Business Corporation Act, supra, under which the proceedings were brought, the proceedings are treated as being in equity.

In the case of Ashton v. Pittsburgh Consolidated Coal Co., 69 D. & C. 277 (1949), the court held that proceedings under the Business Corporation Law by a dissatisfied stockholder are in equity and that it is within the discretion of the court to grant reasonable compensation to expert witnesses in such proceedings. We adopt the reasoning and law of this case and feel that additional compensation must be taxed in favor of certain witnesses called by plaintiff in the proceedings before the court-appointed appraisers.

Petitioner also submits two items for expenses to Norristown, and cost of photostats. We do not feel that either of these are allowable as costs. The fees allowed in our decree to the expert witnesses shall be in addition to the ordinary witness fees.

And now, June 11, 1954, the prayer of the petition is allowed; the rule granted thereon is made absolute, and it is ordered and directed that the Conshohocken Printing Company, respondent, pay, as part of the costs, the following fees to the following ex*404pert witnesses: E. Lane Crawford, $50; H. S. Rhoads, $25; Wesley H. Conklin, $50; Harold McCuen, $50.

The foregoing are directed to be taxed as part of the costs of the case.
§ 90.3 Procedures for requesting health assessments. ( a ) ATSDR will accept requests to perform health assessments for a particular facility or release from any person or group of persons.
( b ) All requests to ATSDR to perform health assessments should be addressed to: Assistant Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30333.
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the Quarterly Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., VicePresident of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
/s/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Reports
- Contact Us
- Public Meetings

HomeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Reports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 						Reports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy					

							The President, Secretary of State, the Congress, and the American public merit informed, serious, and timely appraisals and recommendations of government activities that intend to understand, inform, and influence global audiences. The ACPD will provide frequent and in-depth information to better serve and empower those that formulate, authorize, fund, and engage in these activities.						

134 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021202020192018201720162015201420132011201020082005200420032002200019981996199519931992199119901989198819871986198519831982198019781977197619751974197319711970196919681967196619651964196319621961196019591958195719561955195419531952195119501949

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypeACPD Annual ReportACPD Special Report

Select a Bureau/OfficeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century (1995)	  March 1, 1995 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy in a Changed World (1993)	  October 1, 1993 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy in the Pacific Century (1993)	  July 1, 1993 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		1993 Annual Report, “Diplomacy in the Information Age”	  February 1, 1993 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		The New World of U.S. International Broadcasting (1992)	  July 1, 1992 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy In The Soviet Union And The Republics (1991)	  November 1, 1991 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		1991 Annual Report, “Public Diplomacy in the 1990s”	  May 1, 1991 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy In A New Europe (1990)	  May 1, 1990 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		United States Public Diplomacy in China (1989)	  December 1, 1989 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		1989 Annual Report	  December 1, 1988 

previous page1…34567…14next page

Back to Top
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0340 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-081-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, 

EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 Helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 350 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $10,833 to replace the hoist and boom assembly.

Labor per Helicopter

(1.5 work-hours x $85/workhour for removing the hoist 

and boom assembly, 

performing the dye 

penetrant inspection, and 

reinstalling the equipment.)

$128

(0.33 work hour X $85/workhour to replace the hoist and 

boom assembly if needed)

Other (Explain)

$28

Total Cost per Helicopter $128 to remove the hoist and boom assembly, 

performing the dye penetrant inspection, and 

reinstalling the equipment.

Total US Fleet Cost

Total Cost per Helicopter

$44,800

$10,861 to replace the hoist and boom assembly.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
2
EX-10.49






EXHIBIT 10.49




AMENDMENT TO

STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN

CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.




     This Amendment to the Stock Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) of Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc.
(the “Company”) is made this 10th day of December, 2008 pursuant to Section 7.07 of the Plan, and
was approved by the Company’s Board of Directors on such date.



     The first sentence of Section 1.05 of the Plan be and hereby is amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:




The number of shares of Company Common Stock available for grants
and awards under this Plan shall be 6,000,000; provided, however,
that the number of shares subject to Restricted Stock Awards,
Restricted Stock Units and Performance Awards under this Plan shall
not exceed 2,000,000.



     In witness whereof, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed as of December 10,
2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Thomas W. Gallagher
 

	 	 
	Its:

	 	Executive Vice President,	 	 
	 

	 	General Counsel and Secretary
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)


                            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 Interphase Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Steven P. Kovac,
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/ Steven P. Kovac

Steven P. Kovac
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003





                                       22
HomeThe Secretary of StateRemarks & Releases...Recruiting People with Disabilities to the Department of State

# 									Recruiting People with Disabilities to the Department of State							

Video Remarks

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 9, 2023

For generations, people with disabilities have made vital contributions to advance U.S. foreign policy and ensure it delivers for the American people.

They’ve used their exceptional talents, creativity, and ingenuity to help improve public health... promote development... expand economic opportunities... defend human rights... and protect our planet.

Across these efforts, they’ve built bridges of friendship and understanding between Americans and people around the globe.

They’ve also brought a unique and indispensable perspective to our foreign policy, drawn from their own lived experiences.

Today, the State Department is stronger... our country is safer... and Americans are more prosperous and more secure because of the efforts of people with disabilities.

To tackle the biggest challenges our world faces today – whether that’s shaping emerging technologies or combatting climate change – we need our nation’s best and brightest. We need diversity, which makes our teams smarter, more effective, and more innovative. And we can’t represent the United States if our employees don’t reflect the American people.

For all these reasons and so many more, we want – and we need – people with disabilities on our team.

We’re committed to making the State Department a place where everyone has equitable opportunities to contribute, grow, and lead. That’s why we’ve expanded support for employees to try assistive technologies – from adapted keyboards to magnification software – and find what allows them to serve to their full potential. We’ve updated our medical requirements for joining the Foreign Service, so people with disabilities have more opportunities to serve abroad. And we’ve switched our standard font to one that’s more compatible for people using screen reader programs, and more accessible for employees with learning disabilities. Those are just a few examples, and we’re committed to doing more.

We’re also fully integrating accessibility into our foreign policy, and working with partners in government, civil society, and the private sector to advance the rights and inclusion of more than a billion people with disabilities around the world.

Our Special Advisor on International Disability Rights – Sara Minkara – is helping lead our efforts. As she puts it, “the inclusion of all is a value for all.” That’s true for the world, and it’s true for the State Department.

As we build that value, I hope that you’ll join us, and come use your talents to forge a future that’s more peaceful and more prosperous for all.

We’d be lucky to have you on our team.

Tags

Bureau of Global Talent ManagementDisabilityHuman ResourcesThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.125 Particulate tests; canisters containing particulate filters; minimum requirements.

Gas mask canisters containing filters for protection against particulates (e.g. dusts, fumes, mists, and smokes) in combination with gases, vapors, or gases and vapors, shall also comply with the requirements as prescribed in §§ 84.170 through 84.181, except for the airflow resistance test of § 84.172.

[60 FR 30355, June 8, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 20607, Apr. 14, 2020]
#### Job S. Dod *against*Ambrose Kitchel and others.

OK CERTIORARI.

THE state of demand, which bears date *March*17, 1817, sets out, in substance, that the plaintiffs being owners and possessors of lands adjoining the *Passaick*river and branches, between the little falls and the mill dam at *Chatham,*were on the fourth *Tuesday*of *May,*then last past, in the township of *Caldwell*in *Essex*county, elected managers, for the purpose of removing obstructions out of that river, under the act, entitled “ An act for removing obstructions to the free course of the waters of the rivers *Passaick, Rockaway,*and *Whippany,”*passed *January*31, 1812; that the defendant was possessed of lands on the *Passaick*river, between the points above mentioned, in the said township of *Caldwell,*in a place called * * * * ; that lie neglected and refused to remove the logs, brush, and trees, in said river, opposite to his land, which impeded the course of the water until the 25th day of *June,*then last past; that *Henry Pearce,*one of the plaintiffs, was then directed to remove said trees &c., and did do as was directed, and that the work amounted to 21 dollars, 31 cents, which the defendant was liable to pay under the provisions of said act. And a bill of the particulars of *the work is added. There was a trial and verdict for the plaintiffs. And it was here assigned for error, that the plaintiff's were not authorized to maintain the suit; that by the act of the legislature, the board of managers which was authorized to clear the river, consisted of three persons, whose duties were specially pointed out in the law ; and that that board only, could bring the suit.

Board of whfctfiiTto t°r re-Auctions in tíie Passaick

*Hornblower*for plaintiff. *Attorney General*for defendant.

But by the Court.

The law directs the creation of two boards of managers ; the one to assess the owners of the adjoining lands, remove the reefs, and clear the river of obstructions, existing at the time of the passing of the act. The other, to see that the brush &c., which should after-*172Wards be annually brought down and lodged in the was removed. The first board consists of three members; the last, of not less than three, nor more than seven. It is the duty of the last, to warn the land holders to remove the obstructions; and if their warning be not attended to before the 25th of *June,*annually, then to hire some one to do the work, and sue the landholder for the value of it. Such is the foundation of the present suit; and this being so, it is brought by the proper board of managers.

Judgment affirmed.
41534.

#### HORNSBY v. DAVIS.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant assigns error on the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The ground upon which the court granted a new trial was that the verdict for $1.00 in favor of the plaintiff, was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. This ground is not specifically provided for in the Georgia Code *(Code Title*70). *Code*§ 70-208 provides: “In all applications for a new trial on other grounds, not provided for in this Code, the presiding judge must exercise a sound legal discretion in granting or refusing the same according to the provisions of the common law and practice of the courts.”

“The broad discretion of the jury as to the amount of damages is not a limitation on the discretion of the trial judge to set aside the verdict when he thinks it unfair, unjust, contrary to the evidence, excessive, or too small; but is a persuasive influence not lightly to be disregarded . . . The trial judge is not to substitute his opinion for that of the jury, but merely sends the case for the opinion of another jury.” *Holland v. Williams,*3 Ga. App. 636, 638 (60 SE 331); *Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co.,*8 Ga. App. 288 (68 SE 1092); *Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co.,*135 Ga. 151 (68 SE 1031); accord *Southern R. Co. v. Miller,*3 Ga. App. 410, 412 (59 SE 1115). “The determination of the question, as to whether a verdict for damages is inadequate in the legal sense, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will be interfered with by the appellate court only in case of a manifest abuse of discretion.” *Brown*
      *420
      *v. Service Coach Lines,*71 Ga. App. 437, 446 (31 SE2d 236); *Lawson v. Lawson,*61 Ga. App. 787 (7 SE2d 603); *Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Stephens,*14 Ga. App. 173 (80 SE 516); *Duffield v. Tobin,*20 Ga. 428; *Morrison v. Latimer,*59 Ga. 880 (1). Since the evidence in this case was in conflict on the question of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages and no particular verdict was demanded as a matter of law, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

Argued September 14, 1965

Decided September 22, 1965

Rehearing denied October 5, 1965.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell •& Moye, Edward W. Killorin, David A. Handley,*for plaintiff in error.

*B.ruce B. Edwards,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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