alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005217EN.01001201.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (1)

1

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 12 EC and 18 EC - Income tax - Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria - Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State)

(2005/C 217/22)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-403/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 22 July 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings between Egon Schempp and Finanzamt München V — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:

The first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 18(1) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a taxpayer resident in Germany from being unable, under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to deduct from his taxable income in that Member State the maintenance paid to his former spouse resident in another Member State in which the maintenance is not taxable, where he would be entitled to do so if his former spouse were resident in Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio BONILLA-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10359.

D.C. No. CR-00-00066-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*484Before LEAVY, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Jose Antonio Bonilla-Guzman appeals the judgment of conviction and his 77 month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Bonilla-Guzman contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of prior convictions for aggravated felonies that were not .charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bonilla-Guzman also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

We remand for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) only. *See United States v. Herrera-Bianco,*232 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2000) (sua sponte remanding to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
693 A.2d 581

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Allen R. WASHINGTON, Respondent.

No. 310, Disciplinary Docket No. 3—Supreme Court.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 20, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated February 5,1997, it is hereby

*32ORDERED that ALLEN R. WASHINGTON, be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three (3) years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
§ 590.512 Authorizing Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations' Activities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities described in paragraph (b) of this section by a nongovernmental organization are authorized, provided that the nongovernmental organization is not a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part.
( b ) The activities referenced in paragraph (a) of this section are non-commercial activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population that fall into one of the following categories: ( 1 ) Activities to support humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs, including disaster, drought, or flood relief; food, nutrition, or medicine distribution; the provision of health services; assistance for vulnerable or displaced populations, including individuals with disabilities and the elderly; and environmental programs;
( 2 ) Activities to support democracy building, including activities to support rule of law, citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to information, and civil society development projects;
( 3 ) Activities to support education, including combating illiteracy, increasing access to education, international exchanges, and assisting education reform projects;
( 4 ) Activities to support non-commercial development projects directly benefiting civilians, including those related to health, food security, and water and sanitation;
( 5 ) Activities to support environmental and natural resource protection, including the preservation and protection of threatened or endangered species, responsible and transparent management of natural resources, and the remediation of pollution or other environmental damage; and
( 6 ) Activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs.
( c ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
( d ) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize nongovernmental or other entities to engage in other activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population, including support for the removal of landmines and economic development projects directly benefiting the civilian population.
Note 1 to § 590.512 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78503, Dec. 21, 2022]
No. 99-345.

#### United States *v.*Cook County et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[106th Congress Private Law 21]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl021.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 3119]]

Private Law 106-21
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   For the relief of Guy Taylor. <<NOTE: Nov. 22, 2000 -  [S. 2000]>> 

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GUY TAYLOR.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Guy Taylor shall be eligible 
for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 
application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Guy Taylor enters the United States 
before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be 
considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 
eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 114 STAT. 3120]]

    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Guy Taylor, the Secretary of 
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if 
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of 
such Act.

    Approved November 22, 2000.
```
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13114

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-60108-RAR

ANDREW THOMPSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 22, 2021)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 1 of 3
2

Andrew Thompson appeals pro se the summary judgment against his second 

amended complaint that Branch Banking & Trust Company violated the 

Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act of 1991. See 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

Thompson also challenges the award of attorneys’ fees to Branch Banking, but we 

earlier dismissed his appeal of that decision for failure to prosecute. Because 

Thompson failed to object after a magistrate judge recommended that the district 

court enter summary judgment in favor of Branch Banking, we affirm.

Thompson waived his right to appeal the summary judgment against his 

complaint. A party must “serve and file written objections” to a magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation within 14 days of that decision, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

and the failure to do so “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s 

order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. As 

Branch Banking argues, Thompson failed to heed the magistrate judge’s warning 

that the “[f]ailure to timely file objections . . . bar[red] . . . a de novo determination 

by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and . . . [any] attack[] on 

appeal [to] unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” In the absence of an 

objection, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s determination that no 

material dispute existed that Branch Banking did not violate the Act when it had 

express permission to call a second party who forwarded the telephone calls to 

Thompson. See Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110, 1118 

USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 2 of 3
3

(11th Cir. 2014). Because Thompson failed to object after being warned “of all of 

the consequences on appeal for failing to object,” he waived any challenge he 

could have made to the adverse ruling. See Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t 

Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020).

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Branch Banking & Trust.

USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 3 of 3
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2822

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide authority for

the temporary suspension of antidumping and countervailing duties under

limited market conditions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 21, 1995

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide

authority for the temporary suspension of antidumping

and countervailing duties under limited market conditions.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Temporary Duty Sus5 pension Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTIES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of subtitle C of title

8 VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 2675 and follow-
2

•HR 2822 IH

1 ing) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following

2 new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 754. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTIES.

4 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The administering author6 ity may suspend for a period of up to one year the

7 imposition of antidumping duties or countervailing

8 duties in whole or in part with respect to one or

9 more particular products covered in an order under

10 this title or section 303, or in a finding under the

11 Antidumping Act, 1921, if the administering author12 ity determines that prevailing market conditions re13 lated to the availability of the product in the United

14 States make imposition of such duties inappropriate.

15 ‘‘(2) OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.—A suspen16 sion may not be ordered under paragraph (1) unless

17 potentially affected parties have had an opportunity

18 to comment on the suspension.

19 ‘‘(3) EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF DUTIES.—

20 A suspension under paragraph (1) may be extended,

21 after opportunity for potentially affected parties to

22 comment on the extension, for additional periods of

23 not more than one year each.

24 ‘‘(4) REINSTATEMENT OF DUTIES.—Duties sus25 pended under this section may be reinstated at any
3

•HR 2822 IH

1 time, after opportunity for potentially affected par2 ties to comment on the reinstatement, if the admin3 istering authority determines that there is insuffi4 cient basis for continuing the suspension.

5 ‘‘(b) POTENTIALLY AFFECTED PARTY.—For pur6 poses of this section, the term ‘potentially affected party’

7 means, with respect to an order or finding described in

8 subsection (a)(1)—

9 ‘‘(1) any person who filed a petition pursuant

10 to which the order or finding was issued;

11 ‘‘(2) any producer or consumer of the product

12 in the United States; and

13 ‘‘(2) a United States importer of the product or

14 a distributor of the product in the United States.’’.

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con16 tents for title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended

17 by inserting after the item relating to section 753 the fol18 lowing new item:

‘‘Sec. 754. Temporary suspension of duties.’’.

Æ
HomePanama

# Panama

159 items

        -    TIAS  		Panama (08-1210) – Memorandum of Understanding on the Fulbright Exchange Program	  December 10, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (06-1220.1) – Agreement on SPS Issues for United States-Panama Trade in Agricultural Products	  December 20, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (06-1220) – Agreement on Cooperation in Agricultural Trade	  December 20, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (05-210) – Agreement Regarding the Cooperating Nation Information Exchange System	  February 10, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (04-0819.1) – Agreement Regarding a Debt-for-Nature Swap	  August 19, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (03-1106.1) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  November 6, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (03-730) – Agreement Regarding a Debt-For-Nature Swap	  July 30, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (02-401) – Agreement Regarding Assistance with Respect to Certain Environmental Pollution Incidents in the Panama Canal Area	  April 1, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (02-205.1) – Supplementary Arrangement to the Arrangement of March 18, 1991 for Support and Assistance from the US Coast Guard for the National Maritime Service of the Ministry of Government and Justice	  February 5, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Panama (13098) – Treaty for the Return of Stolen, Robbed or Converted Vehicles and Aircraft	  September 13, 2001 

previous page1…13141516next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs...Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs 2  Releases

# Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Releases

94 items

        -    Press Statement  		Sixth Anniversary of Iran’s Wrongful Detention of Siamak Namazi	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 13, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Paul Rusesabagina Case Outcome	  Ned PriceSeptember 20, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) 2021	  September 16, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Birthday and Ninth Anniversary of the Captivity of Austin Tice	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 11, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Remarks at the Aspen Security Forum	  Zalmay KhalilzadAugust 3, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Michigan Governor Whitmer	  July 23, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing  		Briefing with a Senior Administration Official	  June 16, 2021Geneva, Switzerland 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Andrea Mitchell of NBC News	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 13, 2021Brussels Media HubBrussels, Belgium 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Briefing via Telephone with Wendy R. Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State	  Wendy R. ShermanJune 2, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing  		Briefing with Senior State Department Official to Traveling Press	  May 19, 2021Reykjavik, Iceland  

previous page1…5678910next page

Back to Top
_____________

No. 96-1846SI

_____________

Daniel T. Haines; Nancy A. *

Haines; and Andrew Haines and *

Phillip Haines, by their next *

friend, Daniel T. Haines, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

Sandvik Process System, Inc., * District of Iowa.

a New Jersey corporation, *

formerly a division of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sandvik-Alto, a Pennsylvania *

corporation, individually and *

as successor in interest to *

Sandvik-Alto, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: November 22, 1996

 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The Daniel T. Haines appellants appeal from the district court's

adverse grant of summary judgment in their product liability action. We

review a grant of summary judgment under a well-established standard.

Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state

law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are

satisfied the district court correctly applied Iowa law and the record

supports the district court's ruling. We also conclude that a

comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential value.

We thus affirm
-2-

the decision of the district court without further discussion. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 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 Quarterly Report of PLM Equipment Growth Fund V (the
“Partnership”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner and of the
Partnership, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the
Report of the Partnership filed today 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
Partnership.
 
 
 /s/
Richard K Brock
 Richard K
Brock
 Chief
Financial Officer of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
 November
11, 2005
§ 110.31 Medical benefits. ( a ) Injured countermeasure recipients may receive payments or reimbursements for medical services and items that the Secretary determines to be reasonable and necessary to diagnose or treat a covered injury, or to diagnose, treat, or prevent the health complications of a covered injury. The Secretary may pay for such medical services and items in an effort to cure, counteract, or minimize the effects of any covered injury, or any health complication of a covered injury, or to give relief, reduce the degree or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of benefits to a requester (*e.g.,* a surgical procedure that lessens the amount of time and expense for the treatment of a covered injury). The Secretary may make such payments or reimbursements if reasonable and necessary medical services and items have already been provided or if they are likely to be needed in the future. In making determinations about which medical services and items are reasonable and necessary, the Secretary may consider whether those medical services and items were prescribed or recommended by a healthcare provider, and may consider whether the applicable service or item is within the standard of care for that condition.
( b ) To receive medical benefits for the health complications of a covered injury, a requester must demonstrate that the complications are the direct result of the covered injury. Examples of health complications include, but are not limited to, ill-effects that stem from the covered injury, an adverse reaction to a prescribed medication or as a result of a diagnostic test used in connection with a covered injury, or a complication of a surgical procedure used to treat a covered injury.
( c ) The calculation of medical benefits available under this Program is described in § 110.80. Although there are no caps on medical benefits, the Secretary may limit payments to the amounts that she determines are reasonable for services and items considered reasonable and necessary. All payment or reimbursement for medical services and items is secondary to any obligation of any third-party payer to pay for or provide such services or items to the requester. As provided in § 110.84, the Secretary retains the right to recover medical benefits paid by the Program to requesters if third-party payers are obligated to provide those benefits. Requesters are expected to make good faith efforts to pursue medical benefits and services from their primary payers. The Secretary reserves the right to disapprove medical benefits if the requester fails to do so.
( d ) The Secretary may make payments of medical benefits or reimbursements of medical expenses described in this section to the estate of a deceased injured countermeasure recipient as long as such payments or expenses were accrued during the deceased injured countermeasure recipient's lifetime, or at the time of death, as the result of the covered injury or its health complications, and were not paid in full by the Program before the deceased injured countermeasure recipient died.