alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10(c)

IB's DEFERRED SALARY CONTINUATION PLAN
      In  December  1979,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  IB  adopted  a  Salary
Continuation Plan for certain officers of IB. This plan provides that upon death
of an eligible person during his employment,  his designated  beneficiaries will
be entitled to receive  during the first year after death an amount as specified
per individual plan agreement.  Thereafter, until such person would have reached
age 65 (but not less than 9 years),  an amount as specified per individual  plan
agreement may be received each year.  Upon  retirement  some varying amounts for
each participant,  not specifically  related to compensation,  are also provided
for a 10-year period by this plan.  Benefit amounts are provided by the deferral
of a portion of each participant's salary,  agreed to by the participants,  plus
accrued interest at a market rate.
HomeBelgium

# Belgium

255 items

        -    Speech  		Reaffirming and Reimagining America’s Alliances	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 24, 2021NATO Headquarters AgoraBrussels, Belgium 
        -    Remarks to the Press  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 24, 2021NATO HeadquartersBrussels, Belgium 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Estonian Foreign Minister Liimets, Latvian Foreign Minister Rinkēvičs, and Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landsbergis	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with German Foreign Minister Maas	  March 23, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing  		Briefing with Senior State Department Official on the NATO Ministerial	  March 23, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Le Drian, German Foreign Minister Maas, and UK Foreign Secretary Raab	  March 23, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Petříček, Hungarian Foreign Minister Szijjártó, Polish Foreign Minister Rau, and Slovak Foreign Minister Korčok	  March 23, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg	  March 23, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Di Maio	  March 23, 2021 

previous page1…1920212223…26next page

Back to Top
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7194** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARK E. PHILLIPS, a/k/a Mark L. Aaron , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00165

- JFM

- 1; 1:11

- cv - 00478

- JFM )

Submitted : May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mark E. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mark E. Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap pealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a p risoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 3 22, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phillips has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the f acts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

 2 p.m., September 16, 2009.

# Place:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

 Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

 Enforcement Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9-21161 Filed 8-28-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             115
<SECURITIES>                                     2,646
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,918
<PP&E>                                          26,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,150
<BONDS>                                          3,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,683
<SALES>                                         17,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,055
<CGS>                                            9,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005205EN.01001303.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/13

---

Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-262/05)

(2005/C 205/25)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Andreas Manville, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to transpose Directive 2001/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations to implement that directive fully; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to transpose Directive 2001/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations to implement that directive fully;

1

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive passed on 3 January 2003.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.

1

---
FEWS NET Afghanistan FEWS NET Washington

1717 H St NW 

Washington DC 20006 

info@fews.net 

FEWS NET is a USAID-funded activity. The authors’ views expressed in 

this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of the United States 

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

www.fews.net/afghanistan 

AFGHANISTAN Weekly Climate Forecast #9, 5 – 11 Mar, 2008

A low pressure system moved passed Afghanistan to the

north, bringing snow and rain to northern areas that have

already experienced more precipitation than normal this

year. Precipitation totals in the central portion of the

country, however, remain well below normal, in some cases

as low as half of normal. Snow pack is also well below

normal across the central highlands. The south, normally

the driest part of Afghanistan, has had an unusually wet

year.

Although temperatures were very cold in January and early

February, they have rebounded. Most of the country

continues to see normal temperatures, although the

eastern part of the country between Kabul and Kandahar

has been warmer than normal since the middle of

February. As a result of the normal to above‐normal

temperatures and the already below‐normal snow pack, it

is unlikely that a late‐season snow storm will change the current conditions significantly.

1) Central Afghanistan, spanning from the west to the east, currently has below‐normal snow pack for this time of

year.

2) From March 5 to 11, extreme cold (temperatures below ‐ 18° C /0°F) are likely across northeastern Afghanistan;

these temperatures are colder than normal.

Figure 2. Accumulated liquid precipitation forecast, in 

mm, March 5 - 11, 2008 

Figure 3. Approximate snow depth, in cm, March 3, 2008

Source: NOAA Source: NOAA 

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan
# Montenegro

76 items

        -    Report  		Montenegro	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  April 20, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Montenegro (18-328.1) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  March 28, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Montenegro (18-227) – Defense Protection of Information	  February 27, 2018 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Montenegro	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Montenegro (12-302) – Air Transport Agreement	  March 2, 2012 

previous page1…5678next page

Back to Top
# C_2005182EN.01000302.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 31 May 2005

in Case C-53/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Epitropi Antagonismou in Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others v GlaxoSmithKline plc and Others (1)

1

(Admissibility - Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State - Abuse of a dominant position - Refusal to supply pharmaceutical products to wholesalers - Parallel trade)

(2005/C 182/06)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-53/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Epitropi Antagonismou (Greece), made by decision of 22 January 2003, received at the Court on 5 February 2003, in the proceedings between Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others, Panellinios syllogos farmakapothikarion, Interfarm, A. Agelakos & Sia OE and Others, K.P. Marinopoulos Anonymos Etairia emporias kai dianomis farmakeftikon proïonton and Others and GlaxoSmithKline plc, GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it ruled:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Epitropi Antagonismou by decision of 22 January 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.

1

---
#### Bernice A. GOLDSTEIN, Appellant, v. Norman Harvey GOLDSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 74-549.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# Liberia

71 items

        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Liberia	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		Ambassador Van Schaack’s Open Letter to the People of Liberia	  Beth Van SchaackDecember 14, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Trudeau Travels to South Africa, Tanzania, Liberia, and Belgium	  November 7, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Liberia	  August 18, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Imposing Sanctions on Senior Liberian Government Officials	  Ned PriceAugust 15, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Liberia	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Liberia National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 26, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Liberia	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Liberia	  June 2, 2022 
        -    		Wildlife Trafficking	  April 28, 2022 

previous page12345…8next page

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2804 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2804

To amend the auto theft provisions of title 49, United States Code, to 
  add air bag modules to the list of major auto parts protected under 
                            such provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 15), 1995

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McCollum) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the auto theft provisions of title 49, United States Code, to 
  add air bag modules to the list of major auto parts protected under 
                            such provisions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AIR BAG MODULES.

    Section 33101(6) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) and (L) as 
        subparagraphs (L) and (M), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
                    ``(K) each air bag module;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Alvin RAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7126.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.

Decided Feb. 16, 2001.

Joseph Alvin Ray, pro se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Alvin Ray appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for reconsideration of the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We affirm.

To the extent that Ray’s Rule 60(b) motion is, in actuality, a second § 2255 motion, we find that the district court properly dismissed it as successive. To the extent that it is a true Rule 60(b) motion, we note that it was filed approximately a year and a half after the order it challenges and thus appears' untimely. *198Even assuming that it is timely, however, we are persuaded by the district court’s determination that the claims raised therein do not affect the integrity of the § 2255 proceeding. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order denying the motion.

In his informal brief, Ray also argues, for the first time, that his case is affected by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which issued on June 26, 2000, approximately one month prior to the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Ray requests that this Court vacate the district court’s order and remand for re-sentencing under *Apprendi.*We decline to do so, finding this claim to be successive.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
HomeLatvia

# Latvia

108 items

        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 30, 2021Ministry of Foreign AffairsRiga, Latvia 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 30, 2021ATTA CenterRiga, Latvia 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Latvian President Levits	  November 30, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Latvian Prime Minister Karins	  November 30, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		The Ironclad U.S. Commitment to NATO	  November 29, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		The United States and Latvia: A Strong Alliance	  November 29, 2021 
        -    		Travel to Latvia and Sweden, November 29-December 2, 2021	   
        -    Special Briefing  		Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried on the Secretary’s Upcoming Travel to Latvia and Sweden	  Karen DonfriedNovember 26, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Latvia and Sweden	  Ned PriceNovember 26, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Latvia National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 18, 2021 

previous page1…45678…11next page

Back to Top
§ 8.64 Evidence. ( a ) *Rules of evidence.* The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings. However, the Administrative Law Judge shall exclude evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.
( b ) *Depositions.* Depositions of witnesses taken pursuant to § 8.65 may be admitted as evidence.
( c ) *Government documents.* Official documents, records, and papers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Office of the Director of Practice are admissible in evidence without the prouction of an officer or employee to authenticate them. These documents, records and papers may be evidenced by a copy attested or identified by an officer or employee of the Bureau or the Treasury Department.
( d ) *Exhibits.* If any document, record, or other paper is introduced in evidence as an exhibit, the Administrative Law Judge may authorize the withdrawal of the exhibit subject to any conditions he or she deems proper.
( e ) *Objections.* Objections to evidence will be in short form, stating the grounds of objection and the record may not include arguments thereon, except as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge. Rulings on objections will be a part of the record. No exception to the ruling is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.