alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Advancing an Affirmative Vision for Cyberspace at the Inaugural Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building

# 									Advancing an Affirmative Vision for Cyberspace at the Inaugural Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 30, 2023

Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel C. Fick participated in the inaugural Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building (GC3B) from November 29 to 30, 2023 in Accra, Ghana, alongside other U.S. government officials including Chief Digital Development Officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development Chris Burns.

In remarks at the conference, Ambassador Fick highlighted the breadth and depth of the Department of State’s cyber capacity building to date.  Ambassador Fick also underscored the importance of taking international security seriously when considering opportunities for digital development.  During a panel on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Ambassador Fick brought attention to the U.S. approach to AI policy and the path outlined by the U.S. Executive Order on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.”

The GC3B conference is organized by the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the Cyber Peace Institute, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum and hosted by the Government of Ghana.  International stakeholders in the cyber and development communities convened in 30+ sessions over two days to promote a free, open, and secure digital transition for all.

The GC3B encourages countries to work together on developing cybersecurity knowledge, expertise, and skills and to mainstream cyber resilience and capacity building, which is a key enabler for secure digital connectivity, sustainable development, economic growth, and social progress.

We welcome the Accra Call for Cyber Resilient Development:  An Action Framework.  This outcome document of GC3B aims to stimulate global action to elevate cyber resilience across international and national development agendas as well as promote cyber capacity building that supports broader development goals through a set of non-binding, direction-setting actions.

Follow the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy on LinkedIn and Twitter (@StateCDP) for more.

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyCyber IssuesCyber SecurityOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### § 44.4905-3 Liability for failure to register change or removal.

Any person succeeding to and carrying on a business for which the special tax imposed by section 4411 has been paid, and any taxpayer changing his residence address or his place of business, without registering such change as provided in §§ 44.4905-1 and 44.4905-2 shall be liable to an additional tax, and to the penalty prescribed in section 6651 for failure to make a return. (For regulations under section 6651, see the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (Part 301 of this chapter).)
- Office Home
- Remarks and Releases

HomeOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues...Remarks and Releases — Office of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues

# 						Remarks and Releases — Office of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues					

48 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021202020192017

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAntony J. BlinkenNed PriceRichard R. VermaUzra Zeya

Select a LocationAfghanistanArmeniaAustraliaCanadaChinaEthiopiaGeorgiaHong KongIcelandIranIraqIsraelJapanMacauNorth KoreaRussiaSaudi ArabiaSwedenSyriaTaiwanTibetTurkeyUkraineXinjiang

Select a Release TypeDepartment Press BriefingMedia NoteOther ReleasePress StatementRemarksReportSpeechStatement of ConcernVideo Remarks

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of International Religious FreedomOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan IssuesOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in PersonsThe Secretary of StateUnder Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

          -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet) - Tibet	  April 22, 2024 
          -    Remarks  		Deputy Secretary Verma’s Remarks at the State Department 2024 Losar Reception	  Richard R. VermaFebruary 13, 2024 
          -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at the State Department 2024 Losar Reception	  Uzra ZeyaFebruary 13, 2024Washington, D.C. 
          -    Press Statement  		Marking Losar, the Tibetan New Year	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 9, 2024 
          -    Remarks  		Remarks at the U.S. and Canada IRFBA Ministerial Side Event on Cultural Erasure	  Uzra ZeyaNovember 29, 2023IRFBA Ministerial Side Event on Cultural ErasurePrague, Czech Republic 
          -    Remarks  		Remarks for the International Campaign for Tibet Side Event at the IRFBA Ministerial Conference	  Uzra ZeyaNovember 29, 2023IRFBA Ministerial ConferencePrague, Czech Republic 
          -    		Office of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues	  October 11, 2023 
          -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at a Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) Hearing on China’s Global Transnational Repression Campaign	  Uzra ZeyaSeptember 12, 2023 
          -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks on Addressing Water Security Challenges in the Himalayan Region	  Uzra ZeyaAugust 24, 2023World Water WeekStockholm, Sweden 
          -    Press Statement  		Announcement of Visa Restrictions to Address Forced Assimilation in Tibet	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 22, 2023 

123…5next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         169,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  914,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                   189,000
<INVENTORY>                                    132,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,595,688
<PP&E>                                       1,895,091
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,192,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,198,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,357,202
<BONDS>                                      1,696,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,948
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,141,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,198,313
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,202,944
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,093,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               203,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             207,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, John T. Grigsby,Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Marijo L. Ahlgrimm, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| November 14,  2003 |   /s/  John T. Grigsby, Jr.  |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|               | John T.  Grigsby, Jr.,                 |
|               | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|               |                                   |
|               |                                   |
|               |   /s/  Marijo L. Ahlgrimm    |   |
|               | Marijo L.  Ahlgrimm,                   |
|               | Executive  Vice President and          |
|               | Chief  Financial Officer               |
|                    |                                        |        |  |

 

----
#### LEWIS E. SMOOT v. THE UNITED STATES.

[48 C. Cls., 427 ; 237 U. S., 38.]

*On plaintiffs appeal.*

The claimant has a contract to furnish “ *11$,200 cutio yards, more or less,"*of filter sand for a filtration plant in the city of Washington. During the progress of the work he receives an order from the engineer in charge, giving various directions as to places where sand is to be delivered and the quantities. The total amounts supplied amounted to 157,725 cubic yards. In the same letter he is admonished that he is behindhand in his deliveries and that the penalties of the contract will be enforced in future. He erects an additional plant, which is never used. Subsequently the officer in charge so modifies the directions of the letter that no additional sand is required. The claimant alleges that he is entitled to recover for the additional expenses caused by the letter and for the profits which he would have made if he had been permitted to deliver the additional quantity of sand, amounting to 21,506 cubic yards.

The court below decides:

I.Where an additional plant had apparently become necessary because of the contractor’s tardy deliveries of building sand and as a means for carrying out the contract with greater certainty, the cost was a proper and necessary expense to be borne by the contractor.

II.A letter from an engineer, in charge to a contractor, which is merely a designation of quantity and shows only the quantity which the officer thinks may be necessary for the completion of the work, and which at the same time directs the method of delivery, is not a contract and may be modified at any time before delivery; and the contractor can not recover profits if the quantity actually required was less than the quantity indicated in the letter.

III. Where a contract expressly provides “ *If the amount of worlc in any class is increased, such increase shall te paid for according to the quantity actually done and at the price specified for such worlc under the*contract,” the provision must govern and the engineer officer in charge can not create another and additional liability not governed by this clause.

IV. Where an engineer officer in charge is authorized by the contract to designate a plan of operations for the convenience of all the contractors engaged upon a certain work, a letter directing such operations is not to be taken as a contract contemplating a modification of the original contract.

*405Syllabus.

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 5, 1915.
#### In re Villa Sites Service Company

*Eaton & Eaton,*for applicants.

April 2, 1953.

Evans, P. J.,

We have.before us_an application for a charter and articles of incorporation of Villa Sites Service Company under the Nonprofit Corporation Law of May 5,1933, P. L. 289, as amended.

Everything appears in order with respect to procedure, and the purposes lettered 3(a) and 3(b) are entirely proper. Purpose 3(c), however, reads as follows:

> “And for such other uses and purposes as may be for the benefit, use and comfort of the residents and property owners of Villa Sites Avenue and vicinity.”

In our opinion, this is a stated purpose so broad in perspective as to permit any activity which would be deemed advisable. Were the law to contemplate organizations having this extensive power, it would not require the statement of any specific purpose for the court’s scrutiny and approval. For that reason, we must refuse the petition for charter.

If, by amendment, purpose designated as 3(c) is eliminated, we feel that a decree of incorporation may be made without further publication. If, however, this *582is not done, the applicants electing to elaborate on the purposes intended to be included in this clause, re-advertisement will be necessary.

And now, to wit, April 2, 1953, the application for charter is refused without prejudice to further proceedings by the applicant in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 4584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EDUARDO TREJO

- MUNOZ, a/k/a Lalo , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00060

- RLV

- DSC

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28, 2017 Decided: October 4, 2017

Before SHEDD , AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, Janet C. Thomas, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assi stant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eduardo Trejo

- Munoz appeal s his jury convictions and 262

- month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012), and four counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Trejo

- Munoz argues that the district co urt admitted out

- of

- court statements into evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause, that the district court erred in calculating the applicable drug weight for Sentencing Guidelines purposes, and that Trejo

- Munoz’s trial counsel provided ineffecti ve assistance . Finding no reversible error, we affirm. First, we reject Trejo

- Munoz’s Confrontation Clause claim , as the statements he challenges were neither testimonial nor admitted for their truth. See Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006); Cr awford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004). We also conclude, upon careful review of the record, that the district court did not clearly err in finding Trejo

- Munoz accountable for 4.5 kilograms or more of high

purity methamphetamine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2015) ; United States v. Layton , 56 4 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review )

. Finally, we decline to consider Trejo

- Munoz’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because the record does not conclusively establish his counsel’s ineffectiveness.
See United States v. Baptiste , 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Trejo

- Munoz should assert this claim, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Id.3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 25.302 Application withdrawal; effect of approval.

A Borrower that submits a prepayment application may withdraw the prepayment application at any time prior to its approval. Even after a Borrower's prepayment application has been approved, the Borrower is not obligated to prepay its Eligible FMS Loans or Eligible FMS Advances.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 256.1 What is Treasury's role in paying awards and settlements from the Judgment Fund? ( a ) The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation which is available to pay many judicially and administratively ordered monetary awards against the United States. In addition, amounts owed under compromise agreements negotiated by the U.S. Department of Justice in settlement of claims arising under actual or imminent litigation are normally paid from the Judgment Fund, if a judgment on the merits would be payable from the Judgment Fund. Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) certifies payments from the Judgment Fund when the following four tests have been met: ( 1 ) Awards or settlements are final;
( 2 ) Awards or settlements are monetary;
( 3 ) One of the authorities specified in 31 U.S.C. 1304(a)(3) provides for payment of the award or settlement; and
( 4 ) Payment may not legally be made from any other source of funds.
( b ) Additionally, Fiscal Service requires that requests for payment identify the statute that forms the basis of the underlying claim. The award or settlement must comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements that authorize the award or settlement. For example, interest is payable on Judgment Fund awards only if there is an express statutory provision, contractual agreement or constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity authorizing the assessment of interest against the United States. Also, a tort under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is payable from the Judgment Fund only when the award amount exceeds $2,500 (for administrative awards) and is in compliance with the regulatory requirements at 28 CFR part 14.
**Exhibit 10.4(a)**     AMENDMENT dated as of August 24, 2007, between AMERICAN COLOR GRAPHICS, INC., a New Yorkcorporation (the “Company”), and PATRICK W. KELLICK (the “Executive”).     WHEREAS, the Executive entered an employment agreement with the Company dated as of April 19,2007 (the “Employment Agreement”); and the Company desires to amend the EmploymentAgreement to provide additional incentives for the Executive to remain in the employ of the Companyon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the Executive desires to continue such employmenton the terms and conditions set forth herein;     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and forother good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree to amend and restate Section 11.7of the Employment Agreement in its entirety as follows:     “11.7. Section 280G. Notwithstanding any other provision herein or any otheremployment, severance, change in control or similar agreement to the contrary, to the extent thatany payment or distribution of any type to or for the benefit of the Executive by the Company orany of its affiliates, whether paid or payable or distributed or distributable pursuant to theterms of this Agreement or otherwise (including, without limitation, any accelerated vesting ofstock options or restricted stock granted by the Company) (collectively, the “TotalPayments”) is or will be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code(which reference includes, for purposes of this Agreement, any similar successor provision toSection 4999), then the Total Payments shall be reduced (but not below zero) so that the maximumamount of the Total Payments (after reduction) shall be $1.00 less than the amount that would causethe Total Payments to be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code (such amountby which the Total Payments would thereby be reduced being the “Excess Amount”), unless theExcess Amount is approved by a vote of the eligible shareholders who own more than 75% of thevoting power of all outstanding stock of ACG Holdings, Inc. determined in accordance with theshareholder approval requirements of Section 280G(b)(5)(B) of the Code and the regulationsthereunder, in a vote that complies with such requirements including, without limitation,applicable disclosure requirements. Any reduction to the Total Payments shall be made by reducingany cash severance benefits.”     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed and theExecutive has hereunto set his hand, as of the day and year first above written.      AMERICAN COLOR GRAPHICS, INC.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy Anthony THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6526.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Leroy Anthony Thomas, Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, James Clarke Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Leroy Anthony Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for production of a certified copy of the jury instructions in relation to his previously adjudicated motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). Thomas’ § 2255 motion has been finally decided, and he is accordingly not entitled to a *665transcript of the jury instructions at this juncture. *See*28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Thus, we conclude the district court’s denial of Thomas’ motion is proper. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In re Donnie Robin SIMPSON, Petitioner.

No. 02-6314.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Donnie Robin Simpson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

On February 15, 2002, Donnie Robin Simpson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the district court to enter a ruling in his motion for downward departure filed on May 2, 2001. On May 22, 2001, the district court ordered the Government to respond to the motion. The Government responded on August 15, 2001. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the petition without prejudice to Simpson’s right to refile if the district court does not act expeditiously. We also deny Simpson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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.*
#### § 16.44 Right to administrative offset.

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered under § 16.42 or § 16.43, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement under § 16.46, may be collected by administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to the defendant.