alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeBiographies...Jeffrey Giauque

# 				Jeffrey Giauque			

															Deputy Coordinator overseeing Programs and Military Coordination						Bureau of Counterterrorism												

				October 24, 2023 -									Present							

Jeffrey Giauque is a Deputy Coordinator for the Bureau of Counterterrorism overseeing Programs and Military Coordination. In this position, he is responsible for high level coordination with the Department of Defense, National Security Council, and other U.S. government agencies on counterterrorism technical programs, operations policy, crisis response, WMD threats, and hostage affairs. Mr. Giauque is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. He most recently served as Director for Agriculture Trade Policy and Food Security in the State Department’s Economic Bureau, where he was responsible for developing policy responses to the global food security crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previously, as Chargé d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Belarus, he led the embassy’s response to fraudulent Belarusian elections, a violent post-election crackdown on mass protests, and the politically motivated arrests of American citizens. Mr. Giauque’s earlier Washington assignments include serving as a Member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, where he was responsible for providing policy analysis and advice on the European Union, the Western Balkans, and the countries of the former Soviet Union. He also served as Acting Director of the Office of European Union and Regional Affairs, where he coordinated U.S.-EU engagement

on global political and security issues, U.S.- EU trade negotiations and energy issues, sanctions, and law enforcement cooperation. Mr. Giauque worked in the State Department’s Operations Center, its Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs, and as a desk officer in the Office of European Union and Regional Affairs. Besides Belarus, Mr. Giauque has served overseas in Croatia, Nicaragua, Serbia, and Turkmenistan. Mr. Giauque has a BA in history and French from the University of Utah and an MA and PhD from Ohio State University in modern European history and the history of American foreign relations. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, and taught international relations and European history at Miami University (Ohio). He speaks French, German, Croatian, Spanish, and Russian. He is the recipient of numerous Department awards, most notably the 2019 Rockwell Anthony Schnabel Award for Advancing U.S.-EU Relations.

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismState Department Official

Back to Top
40104.

#### WELLS et al. v. CHEMICAL BANK NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY.

Pannell, Judge.

The record sent up with the bill of exceptions in this case discloses that Chemical Bank New York Trust Company brought suit against “Freddie Wells, individually and d/b/a Freddie Wells Beauty Supply, Freddie Wells Beauty Supply, Inc. and Wells and Bullard, Inc. and against Freddie Wells Beauty Supply, Inc. and against Bullard Beauty Suppliers, Inc., defendants,” alleging that the defendants were indebted in a named sum to the plaintiff. A single answer was filed by all the named defendants. Upon motion for summary judgment the trial judge rendered a judgment for part of the sum sued for against the “defendants,” leaving the question of the remainder to a jury. The bill of exceptions in this court to this decision of the trial judge is captioned, “Freddie Wells et al., Plaintiff in error v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, Defendant in error.” In the body of the bill of exceptions, it is recited that the defendant in error filed its petition against “Plaintiff in error” and refers to copies of two letters written by “Plaintiff in error” which letters, according to the record, were written by Freddie Wells Beauty Supply, Inc., and that “Plaintiff in error in its answer contended that they only owed a named amount; that on the hearing for summary judgment a counter affidavit was filed by Plaintiff in error” alleging that certain merchandise was held by “Plaintiff in error” and recites that “Plaintiff in error” excepts to the order of the court granting summary judgment; and, that “Plaintiff in error” should be allowed to proceed to trial on the issues raised in both counts of said petition, and that “Plaintiff in error” presents “this his bill of exceptions,” and “Plaintiff in error most respectfully submits this his bill of exceptions.” There are other instances where the term, “Plaintiff in error,” is used in the bill of exceptions. Nowhere in the bill of exceptions does the name of any of the defendants in the court below appear except in the caption where the name of Freddie Wells appears with the abbreviation “et al.”

1. Properly construed, Freddie Wells is the only party plaintiff in error to the bill of exception®, the words, “et al.” being insufficient to designate any other person as the party plain*388tiff in error. *Swift v. Thomas,*101 Ga. 89, 92 (28 SE 618); *Orr v. Webb,*112 Ga. 806 (2) (38 SE 98).

Decided September 26, 1963.

*William M. Redman, Jr., George F. Wheeler, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gerstein & Carter, Edwin F. Hunt,*contra.

2. There being no evidence presented at the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that Freddie Wells owed the plaintiff any sum whatever, but on the contrary, disclosing that if anyone owed the plaintiff it was one of the corporations sued, the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment against Freddie Wells, the only plaintiff in error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 359.46 What are the denominations and prices of book-entry Series I savings bonds?

Book-entry bonds are issued in a minimum amount of $25, with additional increments of one cent. Book-entry bonds are sold at par value.
40433.

#### THURMOND v. THE STATE.

Decided November 13, 1963.

*Mark Dunahoo,*for plaintiff in error. •

*Alfred A. Quillian, Solicitor General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Special ground 4 of the amended motion for new trial assigns error on the admission of testimony of a purported co-conspirator. This ground neither sets forth the evidence objected to nor refers to the same by page number as permitted by the Act of 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 232; *Code Ann.*§ 6-901). Accordingly, this special ground is too incomplete to be considered. See *Toler v. State,*213 Ga. 12 (4) (96 SE2d 593); *Aldridge v. Whaley,*218 Ga. 611, 615 (130 SE2d 124).

Special grounds 5, 6 and 7 assign error on excerpts from the court’s charge as being unsound as abstract principles of law. While it is argued in the brief that such excerpts are not authorized by the evidence, no such contention is made in the motion for new trial; and, since a question cannot be raised for the first *642time in this court, see *Fuller v. Self,*107 Ga. App. 664, 665 (131 SE2d 214), and cases there cited, the sole question for decision is the question presented by the special grounds of the amended motion for new trial, to wit: Were the excerpts from the charge complained of correct as abstract principles of law?

The excerpt from the charge following generally the language of *Code*§§ 38-409 and 38-420, complained of in special ground 5, was not incorrect as an abstract principle of law.

Special ground 6 complains of an excerpt from the charge which defined “conspiracy,” and special ground 7 complains of an excerpt of the charge on how “conspiracy” may be proved. Neither of these excerpts was incorrect as an abstract principle of law.

Special ground 8 complains of an excerpt from the charge as placing the character of the defendant in issue. The court instructed the jury: “Participation in the commission of the same criminal act, and in the execution of a common criminal intent, is necessary to render one criminal in a legal sense, an accomplice of another *criminal.’’*(Italics ours). This charge, without the italicized word has often been used by the appellate courts as a correct statement of the law. *Springer v. State,*102 Ga. 447, 451 (30 SE 971); *Mosley v. State,*65 Ga. App. 800 (16 SE2d 504); *Perryman v. State,*63 Ga. App. 819, 822 (12 SE2d 388). And in *Montford v. State,*144 Ga. 582, 584 (87 SE 797), it was approved as an instruction given the jury. The addition of the word *criminal*in nowise changes the meaning of the sentence since with or without such word the sentence has the identical meaning. The trial court was charging a correct principle of law and such charge did not place the defendant’s character in issue.

The evidence adduced on the trial, while not without conflict, authorized the conviction, and the judgment overruling the amended motion for new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
```

[House Document 107-36]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     

107th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 107-36

 
                   RALLYING THE ARMIES OF COMPASSION

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

   A REPORT TO SUPPORT THE HEROIC WORKS OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY 
                         GROUPS ACROSS AMERICA

  January 31, 2001.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
    Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Education and the 
Workforce, Government Reform, and Financial Services and ordered to be 
                                printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    Enclosed please find the blueprint for my program to 
``Rally the Armies of Compassion.'' I look forward to working 
with the Congress to pass reforms to support the heroic works 
of faith-based and community groups across America.
                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, January 30, 2001.
    
    

```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tiffany Florence SARDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 00-30138, 00-30139.

D.C. Nos. CR-99-00607-TSZ, CR-00-00043-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*378Submitted Feb. 9, 2001.*

Decided Feb. 14, 2001.

Before RYMER, THOMAS, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tiffany Florence Sarden appeals the district court’s sentencing determination to depart upward two levels based on the non-monetary, psychological harm suffered by the victim of her crime. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we review the district court’s decision to depart upward for abuse of discretion, *see Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 99, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996). We affirm.

Sarden argues that there was insufficient evidence that the psychological distress suffered by the victim was more than that normally resulting from the crime of identity theft, relying on United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 5K2.3. However, the district court’s upward departure was pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, Application Note 11(c). Based on the victim impact statement that was submitted and the victim’s testimony at sentencing, which explained the difficulties and extreme emotional problems that she suffered, the court was well within its discretion in finding that the loss to corporate victims determined under § 2Fl.l(b)(l) did not fully capture the harmfulness and seriousness of Sarden’s conduct.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         742,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,287,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,843,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,323,000
<PP&E>                                       9,275,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,478,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,183,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,458,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,494,000
<COMMON>                                    36,910,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     615,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,183,000
<SALES>                                      5,897,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,897,000
<CGS>                                        2,637,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,582,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
From:Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:08 AM

To:Mathias, Scott; Pepple, Karl

Subject:Additional Interagency Comment

Scott,

Please see below for one more small comment from the interagency review. Thanks.

We have one comment on page 81. EPA’s revised language indicated that they “attempted” 

to partially

revoked the standard for transportation conformity purposes. We disagree with the word 

“attempted”

as it implied the partial revocation was not a final decision. In fact, on May 21, 

2012, EPA published the

final Classifications Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012, which 

partially revoked the

1997 ozone NAAQS for conformity purposes. DOT has implemented the transportation 

conformity

requirements based on this 2012 final.

We proposed to change the following sentences (on p.81) to read:

“The D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA violated the CAA when it attempted to partially 

revoked the 1997

ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes only in the Classifications Rule for 

the 2008 ozone

NAAQS. The attempted partial revocation would have become had been in effect effective 

on since July

20, 2013, 1 year after the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. (77 

FR 30160)”
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for CFCRE 2016-C3 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-C3

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of January 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta 

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |   |
|------------------------|--------|
§ 515.535 Exchange of certain securities. ( a ) Subject to the limitations and conditions of paragraph (b) of this section and notwithstanding § 515.202, any banking institution within the United States is authorized to engage in the following transactions with respect to securities listed on a national securities exchange, including the withdrawal of such securities from blocked accounts: ( 1 ) Exchange of certificates necessitated by reason of changes in corporate name, par value or capitalization,
( 2 ) Exchanges of temporary for permanent certificates,
( 3 ) Exchanges or deposits under plans of reorganization,
( 4 ) Exchanges under refunding plans, or
( 5 ) Exchanges pursuant to conversion privileges accruing to securities held.
( b ) This section does not authorize the following transactions: ( 1 ) Any exchange of securities unless the new securities and other proceeds, if any, received are deposited in the blocked account in which the original securities were held immediately prior to the exchange.
( 2 ) Any exchange of securities registered in the name of any designated national, unless the new securities received are registered in the same name in which the securities exchanged were registered prior to the exchange.
( 3 ) Any exchange of securities issued by a person engaged in the business of offering, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing, or trading in securities, or evidences thereof, issued by another person.
( 4 ) Any transaction with respect to any security by an issuer or other obligor who is a designated national.
# L_2020230EN.01003801.xml

| 17.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/38

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1746 of 1 October 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1185 laying down rules for the application of Regulations (EU) No 1307/2013 and (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards notifications to the Commission of information and documents

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 268 of 22 October 2019
  )

On page 6, the content of footnote 4 is replaced with the following:

| ‘4 | Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 59).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘4

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,312
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              25
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,034
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,620
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,524
<LOANS>                                         65,153
<ALLOWANCE>                                        717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,713
<DEPOSITS>                                     113,624
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                623
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 123,713
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,335
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,356
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   145
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,836
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,331
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,400
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,436
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       96
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,084
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,084
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       748
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.65
<LOANS-NON>                                        895
<LOANS-PAST>                                        98
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   687
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      103
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  717
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               430
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            287
        

</TABLE>
#### § 515.402 Effect of amendment of sections of this part or of other orders, etc.

Any amendment, modification, or revocation of any section of this part or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by or under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 3(a) or 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, or pursuant to Proclamation 3447, shall not unless otherwise specifically provided be deemed to affect any act done or omitted to be done, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal case, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation, and all penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such section, order, regulation, ruling, instruction or license shall continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 357

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 357 appear at 70 FR 57431, Sept. 30, 2005.

#### § 357.44 [Reserved]