alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeDivision for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions...Division for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions  Releases

# Division for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions Releases

285 items

        -    Press Statement  		Imposing Sanctions on Actors Supporting Kremlin-Directed Disinformation Efforts	  Matthew MillerMarch 20, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Targeting Entity and Vessel Shipping Commodities for Qods Force and Houthi-Affiliated Network	  Matthew MillerMarch 15, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Taking Further Measures to Promote Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank	  Matthew MillerMarch 14, 2024 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Imposing Further Sanctions to Promote Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank	  March 14, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Officials for Undermining the Dayton Peace Agreement	  Matthew MillerMarch 13, 2024 
        -    		West Bank Sanctions	   
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Transnational Network Supporting al-Shabaab	  Matthew MillerMarch 11, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Targeting Houthi Revenue Sources	  Matthew MillerMarch 6, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Sanctioning Members of the Intellexa Commercial Spyware Consortium	  Matthew MillerMarch 5, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Targeting Qods Force Deputy Commander and Houthi-Affiliated Supporters	  Matthew MillerFebruary 27, 2024 

previous page123456…29next page

Back to Top
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 60113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20909]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighty-Sixth SC-147 Traffic Collision & Avoidance Committee 
Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Eighty-sixth SC-147 Traffic Collision & Avoidance Committee 
Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Eighty-Sixth SC-147 Traffic Collision & Avoidance Committee 
Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 26-29, 2016 09:00 a.m.--04:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Secen at asecen@rtca.org or 202-
330-0647, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street, NW., Suite 910, 
Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Eighty-Sixth SC-147 Traffic Collision 
& Avoidance Committee Plenary. The agenda will include the following:

Monday September 26

    Combined Surveillance Group Leadership Meeting
    Working group breakout meetings

Tuesday September 27

    Working group breakout meetings

Wednesday September 28

    Working group breakout meetings

Thursday September 29

    Plenary Meeting and Agenda

    1. Opening Plenary Session
    a. Chairmen's Opening Remarks/Introductions
    b. Approval of Minutes from 85th meeting of SC-147
    c. Approval of Agenda
2. WG75 Status/European Activities
3. Working Group Reports
    a. Report from Surveillance and Tracking Working Group (SWG)
    b. Report from Threat Working Group TWG
    c. Report from Safety Sub-group
4. Working Group Reports Continued
    a. Report from Combined Surveillance Group (CSG)
    b. Report from Xo Sub-group
    c. Report from Xu Sub-group
    d. Report from Operations Working Group (OWG)
5. MOPS Schedule Review
    Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 25, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17, 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-20909 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
§ 587.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to those other parts authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations. Note 1 to § 587.101 .
This part has been published in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive guidance and definitions, general licenses, and other regulatory provisions.
40524, 40525.

#### McCANN, Administratrix v. LINDSEY; and vice versa.

Hall, Judge.

The general and the special grounds of the defendant’s motion for new trial raise the questions whether the verdict for the plaintiff and the trial court’s instructions to the jury concerning the plaintiff’s contentions of negligence per se, and the law applicable to those contentions, were authorized by the evidence.

The petition alleged negligence by the defendant in failing to keep his automobile under control and a reasonable distance behind, and in failing to stop before colliding with the rear of the plaintiff’s automobile, as well as negligence per se in violation of the statutory speed restriction, *Code Ann.*§ 68-1626. There was undisputed evidence that the plaintiff was personally injured when on a bright, dry day he had stopped his automobile and had been sitting “a minute” or “a good little bit” in traffic and his mechanical signal indicators for a left turn were working, and he was struck from the rear by the defendant’s automobile; that the plaintiff’s car traveled 8 to 10 feet after the impact and was extensively damaged; a child in the back seat was thrown against the seat; and the defendant pleaded guilty in traffic court of following too closely in this incident.

Negligence may be shown by circumstances as well as by direct testimony. If, considering all the surroundings and accompanying circumstances, an event is such “as in the ordinary course of things would not have occurred if the defendant had used ordinary care, negligence may be presumed, and place upon the defendant the burden of explaining the cause of the occurrence.” *Western &c. R. v. Fowler,*77 Ga. App. 206 (1) (47 SE2d 874); *Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Blackman,*7 Ga. App. 766, 771 (68 SE 339); cf. *Minkovitz v. Fine,*67 Ga. App. 176 (3) (19 SE2d 561). The holding in *Hay v. Carter,*94 Ga. App. 382 (94 SE2d 755), that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant’s alleged negligence is not controlling in the present case. In that case there was no evidence of how the collision occurred, but only evidence that the defendant’s vehicle was damaged in the front and the plaintiff’s in the rear.

The evidence in the present case was sufficient to prove negligence in some of the particulars alleged in the plaintiff’s peti*105tion and to authorize the charges complained of. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. It is not necessary to pass on the cross bill of exceptions.

Decided January 27, 1964

Rehearing denied February 11, 1964.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Hoke Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lloy & Long, Nick Long, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual report of Implant Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Erik
Cooper, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Innovative Software Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Implant Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  August 22, 2007                   By: /S/ Erik Cooper
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Erik Cooper
                                            Principal Executive Officer
###### 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 360

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 360 appear at 79 FR 8860, Feb. 14, 2014.

#### § 360.35 Payment (redemption).

(a) *General.* Payment of a Series I savings bond will be made to the person or persons entitled under the provisions of the regulations in this part, except that the redemption payment will not be delivered to addresses in areas with respect to which the Department of the Treasury restricts or regulates the delivery of remittances, including checks and electronic payments, drawn against funds of the United States. See Department of the Treasury Circular No. 655, current revision (31 CFR part 211). Payment will be made without regard to any notice of adverse claims to a bond and no stoppage or caveat against payment of a bond will be entered.

(b) *Mandatory initial holding period.* A Series I bond issued on January 1, 2003, or earlier, will be paid at any time after six months from issue date. A Series I bond issued on February 1, 2003, or thereafter, will be paid at any time after 12 months from issue date. Bonds will be paid at the current redemption value determined in the manner described in Department of the Treasury Circular, Fiscal Service Series No. 1-98 (31 CFR part 359).

[63 FR 38049, July 14, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 2667, Jan. 17, 2003; 68 FR 7427, Feb. 14, 2003]
#### Lance A. RYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-3802.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 25, 1986.

*148Jerome Friedman, Elise Angehr, Metair-ie, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

John Volz, U.S. Atty., Nancy A. Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Gayla Fuller, Regional Atty., Office of the Gen. Counsel, Patrick A. Hudson, Dept. of Health & Human Services, Marguerite Lokey, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before RUBIN, JOHNSON, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Lance Ryan challenges the findings of the administrative law judge, subsequently adopted by the district court magistrate and judge, that he has failed to carry the burden of establishing that his natural father, who was not married to his mother, was “either living with [Ryan] or contributing to [his] support” at the time benefits were applied for. 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(d) (1985); 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). Ryan was denied surviving child’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. This Court, limited in its review to determining whether substantial evidence exists on the record, considering it as a whole, to support the findings below, AFFIRMS. *Segovia v. Heckler,*768 F.2d 596, 597 (5th Cir.1985).

This Court has carefully reviewed the administrative record, and it notes that there is ground for difference of opinion on the issue whether Lance Ryan was living with or was supported by his father at the time of his father’s death in 1966. His mother, now deceased, applied for surviving child’s benefits in 1968, at which time she denied both that Lance’s father was living with him at the time of his death and that he was contributing to the support of Lance. In a later application for surviving child’s benefits, filed by Lance’s aunt with whom he lived, there is a suggestion that Lance’s mother lived with Raymond Van Matre during 1966. Lance’s father, in the meantime, was married to another woman, by whom he sired a child in 1963, a year after Lance’s birth.

On Lance’s side, both he (who was four years old at the time) and his half-bother state their recollection of having lived with Lance’s father. A letter written by Lance’s mother in March, 1969, indicates that she lived with Lance’s father in New Orleans and in Atlanta, but the dates of cohabitation are not specified.

In short, there is conflicting evidence on the issue (not all of which is recited above), and the administrative law judge’s determination must be respected because it is supported by substantial credible evidence.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
#### People of Puerto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, *v.*Pedro Lorenzano, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 6729.

Argued December 15, 1937.

Decided March 29, 1938.

*Francis, Cruz Horta, and Torres*for appellant. *R. A. Gómez*for appellee.

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the present appeal the first, third, and fourth assignments of error are disposed by our opinion in case No. 6742, *ante,*p. 857. With respect to the second assignment of error in regard to second jeopardy, there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that the plea was raised in this particular misdemeanor case. In other words, even supposing in this *861regard there was something of a record in No. 6742, there is no record at all in the present case.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Córdova Dávila took no part in the decision of this case.
40257, 40258.

#### McKINNLEY v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION et al.; and vice versa.

Decided July 9, 1963.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The award in this workmen’s compensation case was erroneous because it failed to give the employer credit for wages paid by him, *Complete Auto Transit v. Davis,*106 Ga. App. 369 (126 SE2d 909), and apparently contemplated allowing credit for wages paid by another employer. *U.S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Davis,*108 Ga. App. 76 (132 SE2d 109). Further, the evidence does not support an award of 60% disability nor does it appear that either the single director or the board made any finding on claimant’s economic loss, if any, and whether or not the loss was caused by other matters or conditions rather than by his disability.

The fact-finding machinery of the board is the proper instrumentality to pass on these issues. For these reasons, we affirm the order of the superior court remanding the case to the board for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*

*182
      *Scott Walters, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*John M. Williams,*contra.

Claimant was involved in a work-connected auto accident on August 29, 1960. He was hospitalized for one week and returned to work for the same employer. He worked at the same rate of pay until February 21, 1961, when he was laid off with other employees. He later returned to work with the same employer for several weeks and worked intermittently for other employers holding different positions at varying rates of pay, including some work in Florida after a labor dispute foreclosed further plumbing work in the Atlanta area. During all of this time he continued to complain because of his injury.

His orthopedist testified that, on his first visit, claimant complained of a problem with his upper spine, especially in his neck when he looked up. The physician’s opinion was that this was a result of the work accident and caused claimant to be 10% disabled. On claimant’s last visit, he had developed a problem with his leg which was diagnosed as a low-back disc injury. While the orthopedist rated claimant 50% disabled at that time, his opinion was that the problem was not related to the work accident.

The single director found the claimant entitled “to 60% of loss of earnings in any week he may earn less than [the stipulated average weekly wage of $159] . . . but not to exceed $20 per week.” The full board affirmed (with the chairman dissenting), but the superior court reversed because, while there was evidence to show some disability and some loss of earnings, there was not sufficient evidence to support a 60% disability award nor “to show what part, if any, of such loss was due to economic conditions rather than physical disability.” The court remanded the case to the board.

Claimant’s main bill of exceptions assigns error on this reversal and remand. The employer-insurer’s cross bill contends that the superior court should have entered a final order denying compensation because there was no evidence showing a loss of earnings.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of June 1, 2017, by and among UBS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITIZATION CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asMaster Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, AEGON USAREALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Save Mart Portfolio Special Servicer, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2017-C1 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober,Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certifythat: 

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from June 1, 2017 through December 31,2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement duringsuch period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificateas of the 28th day of February 2018. 

 

/s/ DanielBober

DanielBober 

Executive Vice President

WellsFargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
"Matt Todd" 

<ToddM@api.org> 

04/07/2009 12:10 PM

To: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: Bob Lucas/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Refinery RTR Final Rule

KC, 

 

After review of the final rule posted on EPA’s website, API and NPRA are submitting the attached 

suggested clarifications and corrections. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. 

 

Regards, 

 

Matt Todd 

 

Matthew Todd 

API 

1220 L Street NW 

Washington DC 20005 

202.682.8319 

www.api.org
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of Capital Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date of this certification:





1. The annual report of the Company for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








CAPITAL GROUP HOLDINGS. INC.

FKA OASIS ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORP.July16, 2012
/s/ Erik J. CooperBy:
Erik J. CooperIts:
Chairman

President

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (107)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         113,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                (64,197)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,642
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,508
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    334
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>