alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 438.722 Disenrollment during termination hearing process. After a State notifies an MCO, PCCM or PCCM entity that it intends to terminate the contract, the State may do the following: ( a ) Give the entity's enrollees written notice of the State's intent to terminate the contract.
( b ) Allow enrollees to disenroll immediately without cause.
Second Amendment - FMC Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.4.b 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION AND STOCK PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company now deems necessary and desirable to amend the
Plan to limit the term of the Plan to comply with the changes in the rules of the New York Stock Exchange; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Company by Section 17 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of October 1,
2003, as follows: 
  
 The following is added to the end of
Section 17. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION 
  
 “No
award of performance units may be granted to Non-Employee Directors under Section 14.1 of this Plan after February 16, 2011 or, if later, the date that is ten years from the date a majority of the stockholders of the Company approve the most recent
version of the Plan.” 
  

 1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22891]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (DPAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on 
October 8, 2009, to review the PAC Recommendation from the Restoration 
Subcommittee, Update members on Travel Management Subcommittee and the 
DEIS), and then visit the field on the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District to 
discuss fire in ponderosa pine ecosystems. The meeting will start at 
8:30 a.m. at the Bend-Ft.Rock Ranger District at Red Oaks Square, 1230 
NE 3 St, Suite A-262, Bend, Oregon in the East/West Conference Room.
    Members will be updated on the Winter Recreation Sustainability 
Analysis. Following an Open Public Forum, members will travel to the 
field to have lunch and visit examples of prescribed burning. The trip 
is scheduled to end at 4:30 p.m. in Bend. All Deschutes Province 
Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, 
Crescent Ranger District, Highway 97, Crescent, Oregon 97733, Phone 
(541) 433-3216.

John Allen,
Deschutes National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-22891 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 191 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 191

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Franks of Arizona, 
Mr. Fossella, Mr. Cannon, and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens Tax Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
              BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to social security benefits) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any taxable 
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
    (b) Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless.--
            (1) In general.--There are hereby appropriated (out of any 
        money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) for each 
        fiscal year to each fund under the Social Security Act or the 
        Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the 
        reduction in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal year by 
        reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
            (2) No tax increases.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
        tax increases will not be used to provide the revenue necessary 
        to carry out paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.417 Submission of translation of international publication.

The submission of an English language translation of the publication of an international application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(4) must clearly identify the international application to which it pertains (§ 1.5(a)) and be clearly identified as a submission pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(4). Otherwise, the submission will be treated as a filing under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such submissions should be marked “Mail Stop PCT.”

[68 FR 71007, Dec. 22, 2003]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,732,303
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     82,874
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         169,805
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       109,966
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,094,948
<COMMON>                                       447,053
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            799,645
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 724,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     59,135
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           783,495
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               4,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,577
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 520,545
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,094,948
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      640,509
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            67,904
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     437,709
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     505,613
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        134,896
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              61,480
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 196,376
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        45,024
<NET-INCOME>                                   151,352
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,410
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  151,352
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        40,716
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         144,108
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75


</TABLE>
§ 51d.7 What are the limitations on how award funds may be used? *Unallowable Expenses:* The following expenses will not be reimbursed under section 501(m) of the PHS Act: ( 1 ) Major construction costs;
( 2 ) Childcare services, unless provided by the institution or entity providing mental health or substance abuse treatment and integral to the treatment program;
( 3 ) Services outside of the geographic area specified in the application, except to the extent that the precipitating event requires physical relocation of either affected parties or facilities;
( 4 ) Any mental health or substance abuse services not directly related to the mental health or substance abuse emergency;
( 5 ) Any expenses that supplant ongoing local, State, Tribal or Federal expenditures; and
( 6 ) Any other costs unallowable by Federal law or regulation.
#### § 71.42 Disinfection of imports.

When the cargo manifest of a carrier lists articles which may require disinfection under the provisions of this part, the Director shall disinfect them on board or request the appropriate customs officer to keep the articles separated from the other cargo pending appropriate disposition.
§ 52d.6 Grant awards. ( a ) Within the limits of funds available, after consultation with the Board, the Director, NCI, may award grants to applicants with proposed programs which in the NCI Director's judgment best promote the purposes of this part, taking into consideration among other pertinent factors: ( 1 ) The relevance of the proposed program to the objectives of this part;
( 2 ) The extent to which the program would involve innovative teaching techniques;
( 3 ) The availability of adequate staff, facilities, and resources (including where necessary cooperative arrangements with other institutions or hospitals) to carry out the program;
( 4 ) The qualifications and experience of the program director;
( 5 ) The authority of the program director to ensure that the program is planned with multidisciplinary input and that multidisciplinary aspects of the program are carried out;
( 6 ) The extent to which the cancer education committee is broadly representative of the disciplines concerned with cancer care and teaching and is allowed to participate in the planning, organization, operation, and evaluation of the program;
( 7 ) If the program is to be offered at the pre-doctoral level, the extent to which its objectives are designed to aid students: ( i ) To acquire a basic understanding of fundamental principles of cancer biology, epidemiology, detection, diagnosis, prevention, treatment and control;
( ii ) To interest students in learning more about cancer; and
( iii ) To develop an appreciation of the need for a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to the care of cancer patients;
( 8 ) The administrative and managerial capability of the applicant;
( 9 ) The reasonableness of the proposed budget in relation to the proposed program;
( 10 ) The adequacy of the methods for monitoring and evaluating the program on a continuing basis; and
( 11 ) The degree to which the application adequately provides for the requirements set forth in § 52d.5.
( b ) The notice of grant award specifies how long HHS intends to support the program without requiring the program to recompete for funds. This period, called the project period, will usually be for 1-5 years.
( c ) Generally, the grant will initially be for one year and subsequent continuation awards will also be for one year at a time. A grantee must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of such awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices, and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require a determination by HHS that continued funding is in the best interest of the government.
( d ) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the United States in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to conform the District 
 charter to revisions made by the Council of the District of Columbia 
                     relating to public education.

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

SECTION 1. CONFORMING DISTRICT CHARTER TO COUNCIL AMENDMENTS RELATING 
              TO PUBLIC EDUCATION.

    (a) In General.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is 
amended--
            (1) by striking section 452 (sec. 1-204.52, D.C. Official 
        Code); and
            (2) by striking section 495 (sec. 1-204.95, D.C. Official 
        Code).
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 452 and the item 
relating to section 495.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2080

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to conform the District 
 charter to revisions made by the Council of the District of Columbia 
                     relating to public education.
```
#### *Christopher Dilts *against*Joseph Parke.

ON CERTIORARI.

VROOM for plaintiff.

Parol prother. (a)

(a)

*Hoppock vs. Wilson, ante 149. Youngs vs. Shough, 3 Gr. 27. Mundy vs. Ross, 3 Gr. 466. Kutzmayer vs. Ennis, 3 Dutch. 372. Hetfidd vs. Dow, 3 Dutch. 440. Cowenhoven vs. Howell, 7 Vr. 323. Nixon vs. Vanhise, 2 South. 491.*

Opinion of the Court.

Southard J.

The plaintiff below claims in the following manner: that lie (the plaintiff Parke) had security to one *Jacob Huffman*in his life time, now deceased, on a note of hand for 8 dollars, 41 cents, to *John Parke,*who assigned it to *Joshua Vanatta;*that *Vanatta*obtained a judgment on the note before *Philip Johnson,*esq. on the 23d of *December*1816, for debt and costs 9 dollars, 88 cents; that the defendant, Díte, having the property of *Huffman*in his hands, refused to deliver it up to satisfy the judgment; and that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that he should not lose the money, but that he would pay it; which he had neglected and refused to perform, and therefore he prays judgment for the said sum of 9 dollars, 88 cents.

By the transcript, the amended return, and papers sent up, it appears that the justice who tried the cause of *Vanatta*against *Parke,*was a witness, and his transcript admitted in evidence; that there was no written evidence of any promise by the defendant to pay the money; but a witness, *Philip Johnson,*esq., swore, that the defendant confessed that he had property of *Jacob Huffman*in his hands, to pay the debt.

From this state of facts, it appears that *Parke*is to be considered as a creditor of *Huffman,*and *Huffman*being dead, he is endeavouring to recover the amount of his claims from *Dilts,*who has *Huffman’s*property in his hands. The phraseology of the papers, does not make it very manifest how the defendant obtained possession of *250the property. From the testimony of *Johnson,*as detailed the justice, it might perhaps be inferred that it had been put in his hands for the purpose of paying this debt; and if this were so, the case would be free from all doubt. But the language of the plaintiff, in his state of demand, contradicts this idea, and leaves it as the fair conclusion, that he came into possession of it, without any reference to the payment *of this debt. Was then the recovery against him right ? I think not. The debt due to *Parke,*was due from *Huffman.*He, or his representatives, were originally liable to be sued for it. The assumption by *Dilts,*to pay, was clearly within the statute of frauds. It was a promise to pay the debt of another.

This conclusion is not altered by the fact, that *Dilts*had *Huffman’s*property in his possession. That does not create or increase a liability to pay the debt, unless the possession is such as to make him executor *de son tort ;*and if that be the ground of claim, he must be sued in that character, *(a)***This representative character and the nature of his liability, must appear upon the record, and judgment must be rendered accordingly.

The judgment must be reversed.

(a)

*Burnet vs. Bryan, 1 Hal. 377. Parker vs. Thompson, 1 Vr. 311.*
- Office Home
- About Us
- Partnerships
- COVID-19 Fund
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of Global Partnerships...Reports – Office of Global Partnerships

# 									Reports – Office of Global Partnerships							

Office of Global Partnerships

### State of Global Partnerships Report

2023 State of Global Partnerships Report [19 MB]

2020 State of Global Partnerships Report [2 MB]

2019 State of Global Partnerships Report [8 MB]

2018 State of Global Partnerships Report [7 MB]

2017 State of Global Partnerships Report [13 MB]

Tags

Civil SocietyPartnershipsPublic-Private PartnershipsOffice of Global Partnerships

Back to Top
- 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  		Teaching Public Diplomacy and the Information Instruments of Power in a Complex Information Environment (2020)	  August 1, 2020 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2019 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  December 31, 2019 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2018 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  November 20, 2018 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Optimizing Engagement: Research, Evaluation, and Learning in Public Diplomacy (2018)	  May 1, 2018 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2017 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  October 6, 2017 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Can Public Diplomacy Survive The Internet? (2017)	  May 1, 2017 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2016 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  September 20, 2016 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Reimagining Public Diplomacy’s Organizational Structure at the U.S. Department of State (2016)	  May 12, 2016 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2015 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  September 22, 2015 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Getting the People Part Right, Part II: The Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy in 2015	  June 17, 2015 

previous page1234…14next page

Back to Top
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 25, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00803-CV

ROBERT BARNES, Appellant

V.

STREETLANE HOMES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03132-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Reichek

Appellant’s brief has not been filed despite appellant being cautioned that failure to file the 

brief by December 10, 2018 would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),(c).

180803F.P05

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT BARNES, Appellant

No. 05-18-00803-CV V.

STREETLANE HOMES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03132-B.

Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, 

Justices Schenck and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 25th day of January 2019.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003877 28-APR-2014 08:54 AM
|  |
|--|
|  | **Sight Reduction Tables for Air Navigation  - Pub. 249** |