alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeThe Secretary of StateRemarks & Releases...Cabo Verde National Day

# 									Cabo Verde National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

July 5, 2023

On behalf of the U.S. Government, I extend warm wishes to Cabo Verde on its 48th year of independence.  Our nations share a strong bond based on mutual dedication to democracy, free trade, maritime security, the rule of law, and economic prosperity.  Cabo Verde stands as an exemplary model of good governance, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, with robust democratic institutions.  The United States takes pride in being a friend of Cabo Verde, and as you commemorate your independence, rest assured that our support will endure in the future.

Tags

Cabo VerdeHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 536.205 Exempt transactions. ( a ) *Personal communications.* The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve the transfer of anything of value.
( b ) *Information and informational materials.* ( 1 ) The importation from any country and the exportation to any country of information or informational materials as defined in § 536.306, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part.
( 2 ) This section does not authorize transactions related to information and informational materials not fully created and in existence at the date of the transactions, or to the substantive or artistic alteration or enhancement of informational materials, or to the provision of marketing and business consulting services by a U.S. person. Such prohibited transactions include, without limitation, payment of advances for informational materials not yet created and completed, provision of services to market, produce or co-produce, create or assist in the creation of information and informational materials, and payment of royalties to a specially designated narcotics trafficker with respect to income received for enhancements or alterations made by U.S. persons to information or informational materials imported from a specially designated narcotics trafficker.
( 3 ) This section does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of technology that is not informational material as defined in § 536.306(b)(1) or incident to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any information.
( c ) *Travel.* The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel including non-scheduled air, sea, or land voyages. Any transactions entered into by a specially designated narcotics trafficker while traveling in the United States that are outside the scope of those set forth in this paragraph are in violation of § 536.201.
§ 579.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 579.201, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 579.201, unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 579.201, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 579.201, such property shall be deemed to be property in which such person has an interest and therefore blocked.
# Nepal

80 items

        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Nepal	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): DRL Advancing Freedom of Association for Workers in Nepal’s Informal Sector	  March 13, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Nepal	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nuland’s travel to Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, and Qatar	  January 27, 2023 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Combatting Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Nepal	  January 25, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 18, 2023	  Ned PriceJanuary 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL FY 2022 IRF Supporting Dalit Rights in Nepal and Bangladesh	  December 27, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Results of Nepal’s Federal Elections	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 27, 2022 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Zero-Tolerance for Sexual Exploitation and Abuse:  U.S. and India Conduct National Investigation Officer ‘Training of Trainers’ Course 	  November 8, 2022 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Indonesia:  Peacekeeping Exercise Garuda Canti Dharma II Helps Partners Develop Critical Capabilities	  October 18, 2022 

previous page12345…8next page

Back to Top
#### Glen Edward WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-861.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Criminal Justice Division, Orange County; Peter De Manió, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7474

DERRICK ALLEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TOWN OF CARY POLICE DEPARTMENT; TONI DEZOMITS, Police Chief; N. COFFEY, Police Officer , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv
- 00144

- BO )

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE , WYNN , and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Derrick Allen seeks to appeal the district court’ s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing two of the three defendants in his civil action

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C . § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Allen seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Allen’s motion for a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional p rocess.
DISMISSED
§ 542.528 Policy on activities related to the agricultural sector of Syria. ( a ) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions involving Syria's agricultural sector that are otherwise prohibited by § 542.206, § 542.207, or § 542.210. The purpose of this policy is to enable projects to benefit and support the people of Syria by enhancing and strengthening the agricultural sector in a food insecure country.
( b ) Specific licenses issued pursuant to this policy will not authorize any transaction or activity, directly or indirectly, with the Government of Syria or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 542.201.
- Office Home
- About Us

HomeBureaus & Offices > Bureau of Political-Military Affairs...Office of State-Defense Integration

# Office of State-Defense Integration

## 				Our Mission			

					The Office of State-Defense Integration (PM/SDI) promotes and facilitates closer synchronization and coordination between the Department of State (DOS) and Department of Defense (DoD) by managing several high-profile political-military programs and functions. These include the Foreign Policy Advisor (POLAD) and Military Advisor (MILAD) programs; DoD visits to the Department (military education, pre-deployment briefings, and senior leader engagements); DoD requests for DOS participation in military exercises; DOS approvals of Foreign Government Employment (FGE) requests from retired military personnel; and PM University training courses for DOS personnel. These programs and functions build partnerships and foreign policy expertise in matters pivotal to both DOS and DoD. The end result is that both agencies more efficiently and effectively advance U.S. national security interests, prepare for and respond to emerging threats, and ensure the strategic alignment of our U.S. military and diplomatic efforts. 				

Back to Top
# C_2005171EN.01002501.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/25

---

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-157/05)

(2005/C 171/41)

Language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer.

PCS Systemtechnik GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 February 2005 in appeal proceedings R 248/2004-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 February 2005 in appeal proceedings R 248/2004-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Word mark ‘T-PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (application no 1077304). |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | PCS Systemtechnik GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Word mark ‘PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42 (Community trade mark No 628149). |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition allowed and application no 1077304 refused. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed. |
| Pleas in law: | The decision of the Board of Appeal infringes the final half-sentence of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks being compared. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Word mark ‘T-PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (application no 1077304).

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

PCS Systemtechnik GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Word mark ‘PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42 (Community trade mark No 628149).

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition allowed and application no 1077304 refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law:

The decision of the Board of Appeal infringes the final half-sentence of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks being compared.

---
# C_2005217EN.01003501.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/35

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Action for annulment - Accusations against an official - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of request for financial assistance)

(2005/C 217/78)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-387/02: Dorte Schmidt-Brown, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request seeking financial assistance from the Commission in an action for defamation brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; I. Natsinas, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003

1

---
#### Samuel S. Swartz, petitioner, *v.*Rose Swartz, defendant.

[Decided September 27th, 1929.]

*Mr. William B.*Surran, for the petitioner.

Ingersoll, V. C.

This is an independent suit for divorce. The petitioner alleges refusal of sexual intercourse for a period of over two years.

The special master to whom it was referred reported that the petition should be dismissed, as he was unable to find “the intent to desert was present in the mind of the defendant prior to October 15th, 1928.” He stated, “she may have left *169the bed of the petitioner prior to that date, but that does not necessarily mean there was an intention to desert.”

Unjustified refusal of sexual intercourse persisted in willfully, obstinately and continually for a period of two years is a ground for divorce for the cause of desertion. *Haskell*v. *Haskell, 99 N. J. Eq. 399.*

The surrounding circumstances, adequately established, may be of a nature to fully supply the office of corroboration which the law requires in matrimonial cases. *Robinson*v. *Robinson, 83 N. J. Eq. 150; affirmed, 84 N. J. Eq. 201.*

While the evidence is not convincing that the wife intended to desert her husband, at the time of the alleged refusal, it is convincing that she persisted in such unjustified refusal of sexual intercourse, willfully, obstinately and continually for the statutory period.

The exceptions will be sustained, and a decree *nisi*advised.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard Glenn NAAS.

No. 65125.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 12, 1979.

In re Richard Glenn Naas, applying for remedial writs and bond reduction. Parish of Ouachita. No. 38,271.

Writ denied. On the showing made there was no abuse of discretion.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARETHA YULFRIEN

MATULANDI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70151

Agency No. A096-342-479

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Margaretha Yulfrien Matulandi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding

FILED

DEC 16 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-70151

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for

review.

In her opening brief, Matulandi fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive

determination that her asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,

94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are

deemed waived). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Matulandi failed to

establish past persecution in Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1182. Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s finding that even as a member of a disfavored

group, Matulandi failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. 

See id. at 1185. Further, the evidence does not compel the finding that Matulandi

is a member of a group facing a pattern or practice of persecution. See Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, her withholding of

removal claim fails. 
JT/Research 3 07-70151

Matulandi fails to raise any substantive arguments with respect to the

agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2005204EN.01000302.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss)

(2005/C 204/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3770. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3770. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005182EN.01000301.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

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-20/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong (1)

1

(Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Itinerant sale - Conclusion of contracts for subscriptions to periodicals - Prior authorisation)

(2005/C 182/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-20/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), made by decision of 17 January 2003, received at the Court on 21 January 2003, in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 28 EC does not preclude national rules under which a Member State makes an offence of the itinerant sale within its territory, without prior authorisation, of subscriptions to periodicals, where such rules apply, without distinction based on the origin of the products in question, to all the economic operators concerned carrying on their activity within that State, provided that such rules affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of products originating in that State and that of products from other Member States.

It is for the referring court to determine, having regard to the facts of the main proceedings, whether the application of national law is such as to ensure that those rules affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States, and, if that is not the case, to establish whether the rules in question are justified by an objective in the general interest within the meaning which the Court's case-law gives to that expression and whether they are proportional to that objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Douglas Ray LEVERETT v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 65830.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1979.

In re Douglas Ray Levere'tt, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of St. Mary. No. 83,819.

Granted. The hearing previously ordered shall be held forthwith.
Exhibit 10.8
​
Current Director Fee Arrangements
​
Directors of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") receive a monthly fee of $1,500 per regular monthly meeting attended, which is the only compensation paid to directors by Bancorp, except for stock options which may be granted in the discretion of the Board of Directors under Bancorp's 2018 Omnibus Incentive Plan. Directors of Great Southern Bank receive a monthly fee of $3,000 per regular monthly meeting attended. The directors of Bancorp and the directors of the Bank are the same individuals. The directors of Bancorp and its subsidiaries serving on the Audit Committee are paid a fee of $300 per meeting attended, except for the chairman of the Audit Committee, who is paid a fee of $350 per meeting attended.  Director Brown serves on the Bank’s Compliance Committee and is paid a fee of $300 per meeting attended.  The directors of Bancorp and its subsidiaries are not reimbursed for their costs incurred in attending Board and committee meetings.