alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Coronavirus 
-  Grants 
-  Health Insurance Reform 
-  HHS Administrative 
-  HIPAA 
-  Medicare and Medicaid 
-  Programs for Families and Children 
-  Public Health and Safety 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# What diseases are subject to Federal isolation and quarantine law?

By Executive Order of the President, federal isolation and quarantine are authorized for these communicable diseases:
                    - Cholera
                    - Diphtheria
                    - Infectious tuberculosis
                    - Plague
                    - Smallpox
                    - Yellow fever
                    - Viral hemorrhagic fevers
                    - Severe acute respiratory syndromes
                    - Flu that can cause a pandemic
                    - Measles

Learn more about Quarantine and Isolation.

Posted in: Public Health and Safety

## Search HHS FAQs by questions or keywords:

Content last reviewed July 21, 2022
#### Clark County vs. Spence.

Upon appeal from the county court to the Circuit Court and a reversal of the judgment, the Circuit Court ought to set the case fo" trial anew therein, and not remand it to the county court for proceedings to be had therein.

It is within the discretion of the County Court to allow the sheriff for fuel, stationery, etc., expended for the use of his office; but such discretion cannot be controlled by the Circuit Court.

*Appeal from Clark Circuit*Court.

Hon. L. B. Green Circuit Judge.

Hempstead, Sol. General, and Stuart for the appellant.

It was an error in the Circuit Court to remand the cause, for if the judgment of the County Court was reversed, the cause should have been tried *de novo. Gould's Dig.*138, 319, 680; *Wells vs. Fletcher,*17 *Ark.*585.

The County Court has the *power¿.o*audit, settle and direct *466the payment of all demands against the county. *Gould's Dig.*317. But all allowances must be made on the authority of law. 3 *Ark. Rep.*7.

Perhaps the County Court might have allowed the claim, but it rested in discretion; and the Circuit Court, in the absence of any law to that effect, cannot compel the allowance.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

The sheriff of Clark county presented to the County Court for allowance an account of sixty dollars, for so much expended by him for fuel, paper, blanks and candles for the use of the sheriff’s office, and which the sheriff had furnished for the benefit of the county.

The county court was satisfied that the amount had been expended, but on the ground that there was no law authorizing it, declined to make the allowance.

The sheriff appealed to the circuit court.

The circuit court reversed the judgment of the county court, because it refused to make any allowance, and remanded the case for the county court to make a reasonable allowance, and the county appealed.

After the circuit court had reversed the judgment of the 90unty court, it'should have set the case for trial anew in the circuit court. *Carnall vs. Crawford Co.,*6 *Eng. 622.*

But the law being silent upon the subject of the demand, we do not think the circuit court had the right to review and reverse the action of the county court.

We are satisfied that the county court had the authority, if they had chosen to exercise it, in their general oversight of the interests of the counfy, to have made the allowance, if they had been persuaded it was right to do so, but their discretion was not the proper subject of interference from the circuit court.

Let the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, with instructions to affirm the judgment of the county court.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  ------------

As of December 29, 2001, the following are wholly owned subsidiaries of Bush
Industries, Inc.:

       Bush Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

       Bush Industries of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

       Bush Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation

       Bush Service Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

       Fournier Furniture, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

       Bush Industries De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

       Bush Comercial De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

       The ColorWorks, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation

       Bush Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

       Bush Viotechnik GmbH, a German Corporation

       Bush Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, a German Corporation

       Rohr-Bush GmbH & Co., a German Limited Partnership
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1109

ARCHIE STURGILL, Petitioner, versus KERMIT COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-0676-BLA) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 13, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Archie Sturgill, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case. 2 PER CURIAM: Archie Sturgill seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. * See Sturgill v. Kermit Coal Company, No. 99-0676-BLA (B.R.B. Dec. 20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

                          CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT
                                       OF
                     BIRNER DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002


1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Birner Dental Management  Services,  Inc. This Certification
         is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
         Certification  accompanies the 10-Q Report of Birner Dental  Management
         Services, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2003.

2.       We certify that such 10-Q Report fully  complies with the  requirements
         of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
         that the information  contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in
         all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
         operations of Birner Dental Management Services, Inc.


                    This Certification is executed as of May 8, 2003.



                         By:    /s/ Frederic W.J. Birner
                            ------------------------------------------
                         Name:    Frederic W.J. Birner
                         Title:   Chairman of the Board,
                                  Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)



                         By:     /s/ Dennis N. Genty
                            -------------------------------------------
                         Name:    Dennis N. Genty
                         Title:   Chief Financial Officer, Secretary,
                                  Treasurer and Director
                                  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. and will be retained by
Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15485]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13318-003]


Swan Lake North Hydro LLC; Notice of Modification of Procedural 
Schedule

    Take notice that the schedule for processing the following 
hydroelectric application has been modified.
    a. Type of Application: Original License (Major Project).
    b. Project No.: 13318-003.
    c. Date Filed: October 28, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Swan Lake North Hydro LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Swan Lake North Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 
Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located about 11 miles northeast 
of Klamath Falls, in Klamath County, Oregon. The project would occupy 
about 730 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, state lands, and private 
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Erik Steimle, Rye Development LLC, 745 
Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111. Telephone: (503) 998-
0230; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f5a4d56547f4d465a5b5a495a53504f525a514b115c5052"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c697e65674c7e756968697a6960637c61696278226f6361">[email protected]</span></a>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman at (202) 502-6077 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0f020a05050e4519040f060a052b0d0e1908450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54303d353a3a317a263b3039353a14323126377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.
    j. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's December 20, 2017 Notice 
of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis established August 2018 
as the estimated date for issuing the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS). The revised estimate for issuing the Draft EIS is now 
September 2018. As such, the application will be processed according to 
the following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made 
as appropriate. If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date 
will be the following business day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Issues Draft EIS...............  September 2018.
Comments on Draft EIS.....................  November 2018.
Commission Issues Final EIS...............  January 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: July 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15485 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements Nos. 33-85634, 33-89124, 333-76957 and 333-49290 on Form S-8 and No. 333-124355 on Form S-3 pertaining to SkyTerra Communications, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2006 relating to the financial statements of Hughes NetworkSystems, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Baltimore, Maryland 

March 29, 2006
#### MIXON v. MIZE.

No. 36495.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 198 So.2d 373.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-8  (Nos.  333-17149,  333-17163  and  333-17169)  of TELS
Corporation  of our  report  dated  April 14,  1999  relating  to the  financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to
us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statements.


                              PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 8, 2000
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Anthony ESPERTI, Petitioner, v. The Honorable J. H. WILLSON, as one of the Judges of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 40504.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 12, 1971.

Louis Vernell, Miami Beach, and William Moran, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, State ex rel. Esperti v. Willson, 240 So.2d 894 (2nd DCA Fla.1970).

Our initial consideration of the matter suggested a possible jurisdictional conflict between the decision under review and prior decisions of this court on the same point of law.1 On careful consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that no jurisdictional conflict is present. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JT., concur.

1

. Cf. Meeks v. State, Supreme Court, 250 So.2d 854, opinion filed June 30, 1971; Carroll v. State, Supreme Court, 251 So. 2d 866, opinion filed July 12, 1971.
#### Johnnie MILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

*553Johnnie Milton, pro se.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Bradenton, and Thomas A. Capelle, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa; and Pat Whitaker, III, Senior Law Student, University of Florida, Gainesville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The evidence against Milton is tenuous. A police informer and a deputy sheriff disguised as a heroin customer picked up a woman who was a heroin addict. Milton, she testified, came along for the ride, to get from where they were to Belmont Heights. There is sufficient evidence that in Belmont Heights a sale of heroin took place, but the evidence links the woman to the transaction positively and Milton only circumstantially. If the sole question presented was that of the sufficiency of evidence, we would affirm. The deputy sheriff stated to the jury that Milton commented on the heroin dealer with whom the woman transacted business as a person of good character who would “not sell you milk sugar” as heroin. If the evidence were fairly presented the jury would be entitled to believe that Milton knew a lot more about the heroin traffic than he professed to know. Unfortunately, the deputy sheriff gratuitously stated to the jury that Milton “stated at that time that there was a couple of warrants for him. And I think it was shoplifting and . . . ” At this point an objection was made and sustained. The jury was admonished to disregard that part of the deputy’s testimony.

The problem is that where the evidence of guilt is marginal a comment of this type, which an experienced officer should know better than to introduce before the jury, may have been the factor responsible for the guilty verdict. The discussion of warrants outstanding against Milton was uncalled for and requires a new trial. *See*Anthony v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 246 So.2d 600.

Reversed and remanded.

McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           57943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2639
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4815
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 60670
<PP&E>                                           54282
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2072
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      109816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    115793
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 26618
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       56
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  27121
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              27121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (528)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     26593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.89
        

</TABLE>