alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006331EN.01004801.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission

(Case F-10/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Auxiliary staff - Contract Conference interpreter - Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance)

(2006/C 331/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel André (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Jourdan, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission decision of 6 October 2005 refusing to pay the applicant, in respect of services provided for and at the request of the Court of Justice on 12 and 13 January 2005, the flat-rate allowance laid down by Article 7 of the Agreement on working conditions and financial terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the institutions of the European Union and, secondly, an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 8 March 2005, refusing Mr André the flat-rate travel allowance in respect of services provided on 12 and 13 January 2005 for the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 8 March 2005, refusing Mr André the flat-rate travel allowance in respect of services provided on 12 and 13 January 2005 for the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg;

| 2. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant that allowance, plus default interest at a rate two points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question, from 14 February 2005; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant that allowance, plus default interest at a rate two points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question, from 14 February 2005;

| 3. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
§ 98.19 Arrival and inspection at the port of entry. ( a ) Upon arrival at the port of entry, the importer or the importer's agent must present an inspector at the port with the original health certificate and the original import permit for the embryos.
( b ) The shipping container and all straws or ampules containing embryos must be made available to an inspector at the port of entry for inspection, and may not be removed from the port of entry until an inspector determines that the embryos are eligible for entry in accordance with this subpart and releases them.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF  FINANCIAL SECURITY ASSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD.

1.            Financial
Security Assurance Inc. (incorporated in the State of New York)

2.            Financial
Security Assurance International Ltd. (incorporated in Bermuda)

3.            Financial
Security Assurance (U.K.) Limited (incorporated in the United Kingdom)

4.            FSA
Asset Management Services LLC (organized in the State of Delaware)

5.            FSA
Capital Markets Services LLC (organized in the State of Delaware)

6.            FSA
Capital Management Services LLC (organized in the State of Delaware)

7.            FSA
Global Funding Limited (incorporated in the Cayman Islands)

8.            FSA
Insurance Company (incorporated in the State of Oklahoma)

---



QuickLinks
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANA,PR06-0422INTHEMATTEROFTHEPETITIONOFJOHND.BELKINFEY:022021BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCouriStateofMontanaORDERJohnD.BelkinhaspetitionedtheCourttowaivethethree-yeartestrequirementfortheMultistateProfessionalResponsibilityExamination(MPRE)forpurposesofapplyingforadmissionbymotiontotheStateBarofMontana.Byrule,applicantsforadmissionbymotionmustprovideevidenceoftherequisitescoreonanMPREtaken"withinthreeyearsprecedingthedateoftheapplicationforadmission."RuleIV.A.3,RulesofAdrnission.BelkinpassedtheMPREin1998whenseekingadmissiontothepracticeoflawintheStateofColorado,whereBelkinwasadmitted.BelkinhasalsoadmittedtotheWyomingBar.Belkinhaspracticedlawcontinuouslyfor22years,"withoutanyethicalordisciplinaryviolationsinanyjurisdictionwherelicensedorwhereadmittedprohacvice."Goodcauseappearing,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatthepetitionofJohnD.Belkintowaivethethree-yeartestrequirementfortheMPREforpurposesofacurrentapplicationforadrnissionbyrnotiontotheStateBarofMontanaisGRANTED.TheClerkshallmailacopyofthisordertoPetitionerandtotheAdministratoroftheBoardofBarExaminersattheStateBarofMontana.p,s-JDATEDthiszdayofFebruary,2021.ChiefJustice02/02/2021Case Number: PR 06-0422(A#4/f'''‘t4,#Justices
EXHIBIT 10.15



BASE SALARIES FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF



C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION



The following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) in effect as of January 1, 2005 of the current named executive officers of C&F Financial
Corporation:



|                                                                                  |  |   |        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | -------
|Larry G. DillonChairman and Chief Executive Officer                               |  | $ | 218,000
|                                                                                  | 
|Thomas F. CherryExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer              |  | $ | 155,000
|                                                                                  | 
|Robert L. BryantExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer              |  | $ | 155,000
|                                                                                  | 
|Bryan E. McKernonPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofC&F Mortgage Corporation |  | $ | 150,000
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications to Support Regional Economic and Community 

Development Planning to Help Rural People

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 2021 – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Xochitl Torres Small today announced that USDA is seeking applications to implement projects 

supported by regional economic and community development planning to help the people of rural America 

build back better.

The 2018 Farm Bill authorized USDA to make this funding available under the Strategic Economic and 

Community Development (SECD) initiative. It can be used to implement projects that are supported by multijurisdictional and multi-sectoral strategic community investment plans. In fiscal year 2022, this funding is 

available under the following USDA Rural Development programs:

• Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program

• Community Facilities Loan Guarantee Program

• Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loan and Grant Program

• Water and Waste Disposal Loan Guarantees

• Rural Business Development Grants

• Community Connect Grants

To be eligible for SECD reserved funding, applicants must meet the requirements and deadlines under the 

covered programs. Applicants must also submit a Form 1980-88 to USDA. See additional requirements below.

• To apply for SECD reserved funding under the Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loan and Grant 

Program, applicants must submit forms electronically via RD Apply or submit paper forms at the USDA 

Rural Development office where the project is located.

• USDA will issue an announcement in the coming months when the application window opens for the 

Community Connect Grants program. To apply for SECD reserved funding under this program, 

applicants must submit forms electronically at https://www.rd.usda.gov/community-connect. 

• To apply for SECD reserved funding under other grant programs or direct loan programs, applicants 

must submit forms to the USDA Rural Development office where the project is located.

• To apply for SECD reserved funding under loan guarantee programs, applicants must submit their Form 

1980-88 concurrent with the 5001-1 and any documentation required under the OneRD Guarantee Loan 

Initiative application guidelines. 

For more information on requirements and deadlines under the covered programs, visit www.rd.usda.gov. For 

additional information on SECD funding, see page 57409 of the Oct. 15, 2021, Federal Register. 
USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider projects that will advance key priorities under the 

Biden-Harris Administration to help rural America build back better and stronger. Key priorities include 

combatting the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing the impacts of climate change and/or advancing equity in rural 

America. For more information, visit https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points. 

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 55 7

. D A NI EL ERI C COBBLE v

. GEORGI A DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTI ONS COMMI SSI ONER.

On J un e 4

, 2 0 1 9

, s t at e p ri s o n er Dan iel C o b b l e s u b m i t t ed d o cu m en t s t o t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt s eek i n g rev i ew o f t h e d eci s io n o f t h e Fu l t o n Co un t y Cl erk ’ s Offi ce

t o ret u rn t o h i m an ap pl i cat io n fo r a cri m i n al arres t warran t t h at h e s u b m i t t ed s eek i n g

t h e arres t o f t he Co m

m is s i o n er of t h e Geo rg i a Dep art m en t o f Co rrect i o n s fo r v ari ou s

cri m es

. Treat i n g t h e fi l i n g as an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d is cret i o nary ap p eal

, t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt tran s ferred t h is cas e t o u s o n J u n e 2 7

, 20 1 9, aft er d et erm i n i ng t h at t h e cas e d id

n o t i n v o k e i t s ap p el l at e ju ri s di ct i o n . W e, t o o, l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

. Co b bl e h as fai l ed t o s ub m i t a fi l e-s t am p ed co p y o f t h e o rd er h e s eek s to ap p eal

, i n v i o lat i o n of Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 3 1 ( c )

. Th is Co u rt i s es t ab li s hed fo r t h e

co rrect io n o f erro rs o f l aw an d i n t h e ab sen ce o f a ru li n g b y t h e t ri al co u rt

, we h av e

n o t h i n g t o rev i ew. S e e A m i c a v. S t a t e , 3 0 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 6

, 2 8 2 (2 ) (7 0 4 SE2 d 8 3 1 )
(2 0 1 0); s ee al so W

a r d v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. Ap p . 8 2 6 , 8 2 7 (6 8 3 SE2 d 8 94 ) (2 0 0 9 ) August 15, 2019(“ In as m

u ch as we are a co u rt fo r t h e co rrect i o n o f erro rs , we d o n o t co n s i d er i s s u es

w h i ch were n ot rai s ed b el o w an d ru l ed o n b y t h e t ri al co u rt .”). W e, th erefo re , l a c k
ju ri s d i ct i o n t o g ran t t h e rel i ef t h at Co b b l e ap p ears t o b e req u es t i ng

. Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/15/2019
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AccessTel, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 of the
Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



July 1, 2005                             By: /s/ Ralph Sayad
                                            --------------------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2377

EMILE BRILLANT EKAMBY, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-885-395) Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 11, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen A. Smith, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emile Brillant Ekamby, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Ekamby challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Ekamby fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Ekamby’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Ekamby fails to show that- 3 - he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding that Ekamby fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Ekamby failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 6

CERTIFICATION  REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of FirstService Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004
(the "Report") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jay S. Hennick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|Dated: June 1, 2004 |  |                                                                       
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ Jay S. HennickJay S. Hennick
President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |                                                                       
|                    |  |                                                                       
|                    |  |                                                                       

CERTIFICATION  REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of FirstService Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004
(the "Report") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John B. Friedrichsen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|Dated: June 1, 2004 |  |                                                                                               
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ John B. FriedrichsenJohn B. Friedrichsen
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

61

---



QuickLinks
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136194 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136194 

 COA: 283254 

Berrien CC: 07-403362-FH 

MICHAEL LEE GIBBS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
### §1848. Emergency loan guarantee fund

#### (a) Establishment; use; investment

There is established in the Treasury an emergency loan guarantee fund to be administered by the Board. The fund shall be used for the payment of the expenses of the Board and for the purpose of fulfilling the Board's obligations under this chapter. Moneys in the fund not needed for current operations may be invested in direct obligations of, or obligations that are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency thereof.

#### (b) Guarantee fee; deposits in fund

The Board shall prescribe and collect a guarantee fee in connection with each loan guaranteed by it under this chapter. Sums realized from such fees shall be deposited in the emergency loan guarantee fund.

#### (c) Payments; issuance of notes or other obligations when fund moneys insufficient: forms and denominations, maturities, terms and conditions, interest rate; public debt transaction

Payments required to be made as a consequence of any guarantee by the Board shall be made from the emergency loan guarantee fund. In the event that moneys in the fund are insufficient to make such payments, in order to discharge its responsibilities, the Board is authorized to issue to the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations in such forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities during the month preceding the issuance of the notes or other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any notes and other obligations issued hereunder and for that purpose he is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31 and the purposes for which securities may be issued under that chapter are extended to include any purchase of such notes and obligations.

(Pub. L. 92–70, §9, Aug. 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 181.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (c), "chapter 31 of title 31" and "that chapter" substituted for "the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended," and "that Act", respectively, on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.
### §4622. Capital restoration plans

#### (a) Contents

Each capital restoration plan submitted under this subchapter shall set forth a feasible plan for restoring the core capital of the regulated entity subject to the plan to an amount not less than the minimum capital level for the regulated entity and for restoring the total capital of the regulated entity to an amount not less than the risk-based capital level for the regulated entity. Each capital restoration plan shall—

(1) specify the level of capital the regulated entity will achieve and maintain;

(2) describe the actions that the regulated entity will take to become classified as adequately capitalized;

(3) establish a schedule for completing the actions set forth in the plan;

(4) specify the types and levels of activities (including existing and new programs) in which the regulated entity will engage during the term of the plan; and

(5) describe the actions that the regulated entity will take to comply with any mandatory and discretionary requirements imposed under this subchapter.

#### (b) Deadlines for submission

The Director shall, by regulation, establish a deadline for submission of a capital restoration plan, which may not be more than 45 days after the regulated entity is notified in writing that a plan is required. The regulations shall provide that the Director may extend the deadline to the extent that the Director determines it necessary. Any extension of the deadline shall be in writing and for a time certain.

#### (c) Approval

The Director shall review each capital restoration plan submitted under this section and, not later than 30 days after submission of the plan, approve or disapprove the plan. The Director may extend the period for approval or disapproval for any plan for a single additional 30-day period if the Director determines it necessary. The Director shall provide written notice to any regulated entity submitting a plan of the approval or disapproval of the plan (which shall include the reasons for any disapproval of the plan) and of any extension of the period for approval or disapproval.

#### (d) Resubmission

If the Director disapproves the initial capital restoration plan submitted by the regulated entity, the regulated entity shall submit an amended plan acceptable to the Director within 30 days or such longer period that the Director determines is in the public interest.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title XIII, §1369C, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3985; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title I, §1145(b)(2), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2767.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–289 substituted "regulated entity" for "enterprise" wherever appearing.