alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 16

- 1090L

(Filed February 1, 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

TEMOR S. SHARIFI

, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

Plaintiff alleg es that property he owns in Deh

- e

- Kowchay , Arghandab

District, Kandahar, Afghanistan, was physically taken by the United States

Department of Defense. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 15. More specifically, Mr. Sharifi alleges

that he owns a portion of a 38 jerib parcel that he inherited from his father and tha t

“the Army used his land and that of his neighbors to construct Combat Outpost

Millet.” Compl. ¶ ¶ 4, 13.

D efendant has moved for a more definite statement

, under Rule 12(e) of the

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC)

, arguing that

“[p]laintiff ’s complaint is vague and ambiguous because it does not specifically

identify the property interest allegedly taken by the United States

. ” Def’s Mot. at 2.

The government notes that Combat Outpost Millet is “less than six jeribs in size . .

. and would not have encompassed the entire 38

- jerib parcel” owned by plaintiff ’s

father. Id

.

Although plaintiff elaborates that “houses and trees on his property had been

demolished by the Army,” Compl. ¶ 8, and that a tenant farmer of the land has been

displaced, id. ¶ 9, these descriptions are not enough for defendant to identify the

specific property allegedly taken. Nor is its precise location determinable by the

allegation that Combat Outpost Millet occupied it, as plaintiff alleges that land of- 2

- hi s neighbors was also taken in constructing the facility. See C ompl. ¶ 13

. While

the Court recognizes that different countries will have their own customs and

practices regarding the formalities employed in recognizing property ownership,

those of Afghanistan should not prevent plaintiff from providing more specific

information concerning the location of his land , to satisfy RCFC 8(i) . Indeed, Mr.

Sharifi alleges that he has provided “proof of ownership of the land ” in question to a

local U.S. Army officer

, with “documentation” which “ ha d been verified by the

District Governor for Arghandab District.” Compl. ¶ 11. Th is same sort of

information should be included in the complaint, to properly inform the government

of the cause of action brought by plaintiff.

For the above reasons, d efendant’s motion for a more definite statem ent is

hereby GRANTED . Plaintiff shall file a n amended complaint on or by

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

, specifically identifying the land that he owns

that was allegedly taken

--- either by attaching as an exhibit the documentation

referred to in paragrap h 11 of the initial complaint

, or in some other way describing

the specific location of the land owned by him ( and not his neighbors )

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victor J. Wolski

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

Judge
EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------

INTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Computation of Earnings Per Share
Years Ended  December 31, 1998,  1997 and 1996
(Dollars in thousands except per share data)

                                                 1998        1997         1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Earnings Per Share:
Net income                                     $19,534     $16,664       $1,680
---------------------------------------------===================================

Weighted average common shares outstanding   2,147,118   2,193,268    2,285,337

Basic earnings per share                         $9.10       $7.60        $0.74
---------------------------------------------===================================

Diluted Earnings per Share:
Net Income                                     $19,534     $16,664       $1,680
Net reduction in interest expense
  assuming conversion of capital notes             652         656            *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income                                     $20,186     $17,320       $1,680
---------------------------------------------===================================

Weighted average common shares outstanding
   assuming conversion of capital notes
   and exercise of stock options             2,554,230   2,569,497    2,285,337*

Diluted earnings per share                       $7.90       $6.74        $0.74
---------------------------------------------===================================

* For 1996,  diluted  earnings per share is  considered  to be the same as basic
earnings per share,  since the effect of exercise of stock  options (285 shares)
and the  conversion  of  subordinated  capital notes  (387,178  shares) would be
antidilutive.
HomeMadagascar

# Madagascar

53 items

        -    TIAS  		Madagascar (04-0903) – Agreement Relating to the Employment of Dependents of Official Government Employees	  September 3, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Madagascar (03-804) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  August 4, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Madagascar (12939) – Investment Incentive Agreement	  February 7, 2000 

previous page1…456

Back to Top
#### § 551.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter. Licensing 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. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Somalia Sanctions page on OFAC's website: *www.treasury.gov/ofac.*
# C_2005193EN.01000301.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 June 2005

in Case C-287/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 2001 financial year - Detailed implementing rules)

(2005/C 193/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-287/02: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and S. Pardo Quintillán) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 9 August 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2002/461/EC of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2001 financial year in so far as Annex I thereto includes in the amount recoverable from the Kingdom of Spain a financial correction of the accounts of the Castilla-La Mancha paying agency corresponding to the amount of the compensatory allowances; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2002/461/EC of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2001 financial year in so far as Annex I thereto includes in the amount recoverable from the Kingdom of Spain a financial correction of the accounts of the Castilla-La Mancha paying agency corresponding to the amount of the compensatory allowances;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

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 #41, October 15 - 21, 2008

Much of Afghanistan received below normal precipitation from 

October 2007 through May 2008, along with an early snow 

melt (Figure 1). 

Underground water sources, used for both drinking water and 

irrigation, have not been replenished. During the end of the 

October 2007 – March 2008 wet season, high temperatures, 

averaging between 4-8 degrees above normal, depleted much 

of Afghanistan’s already below-average snow pack four to six 

weeks earlier than normal. Hot temperatures continued into the 

summer and led to increased evaporation from water 

reservoirs. This combination of factors has further limited water 

availability for crop and livestock based agriculture. 

During the latter half of September, most of Afghanistan 

experienced warmer than average temperatures. Above 

normal temperatures will likely continue in the lowlands. 

Across the highest elevations of northeast Afghanistan, weekly 

temperatures will average slightly below normal and extreme 

minimum temperatures could fall to -15 °C (Figure 2). 

During the past week, a few rain and snow showers were 

limited to northeast Afghanistan. Additional light rain and snow 

showers can be expected in northeast Afghanistan, Tajikistan, 

and northern Pakistan during the next week. Rain and 

mountain snow typically begins to increase during October 

across the mountains of Afghanistan.

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan 

Figure 2. Extreme minimum temperature (°C) for October

14 – 20, 2008 

Source: FEWS NET/NOAA 

Figure 3. Weekly precipitation (mm) forecast for 

October 14 – 20, 2008 

Source: FEWS NET/NOAA
699 A.2d 718

#### In the Matter of Frank THOMPSON-McLEOD.

No. 340 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 18, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 1997, Frank Thompson-McLeod having been suspended from the practice of law in the State of Tennessee for a period of one year by Order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville dated September 19,1996, retroactive to November 8,1995; the said Frank Thompson-McLeod having been directed on June 19, 1997, to inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor; and no response having been filed, it is

ORDERED that Frank Thompson-McLeod is suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for a period of one year, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
# L_2020297EN.01000501.xml

| 11.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 297/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/5

---

DECISION (EU) 2020/1264 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 8 September 2020

amending Decision (EU) 2019/1743 of the European Central Bank on the remuneration of holdings of excess reserves and of certain deposits (ECB/2020/38)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular the first indent of Article 3.1 and Articles 17 to 19 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Governing Council considers that the funds mandatorily deposited with the ECB for the purpose of repaying financial assistance under Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 (1) should be exempt from negative interest rates. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Governing Council considers that the funds mandatorily deposited with the ECB for the purpose of repaying financial assistance under Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 (1) should be exempt from negative interest rates.

| (2) | Therefore, Decision (EU) 2019/1743 (ECB/2019/31) (2) should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Therefore, Decision (EU) 2019/1743 (ECB/2019/31) (2) should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Amendment

Article 2 of Decision (EU) 2019/1743 (ECB/2019/31) is replaced as follows:

‘Article 2

Remuneration of certain deposits held with the ECB

Accounts maintained with the ECB in accordance with Decision ECB/2003/14 of the European Central Bank (*1), Decision ECB/2010/31 of the European Central Bank (*2), Decision ECB/2010/17 of the European Central Bank (*3) and Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 (*4) shall continue to be remunerated at the deposit facility rate. However, when deposits need to be held in those accounts in advance of the date on which a payment must be made in accordance with the legal or contractual rules applicable to the relevant facility, such deposits shall be remunerated during this advance period at zero per cent or the deposit facility rate, whichever is higher.

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the fifth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from the sixth reserve maintenance period of 2020 starting on 16 September 2020.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 8 September 2020.

For the Governing Council

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of 19 May 2020 on the establishment of a European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE) following the COVID-19 outbreak (OJ L 159, 20.5.2020, p. 1).

1

(2)  Decision (EU) 2019/1743 of the European Central Bank of 15 October 2019 on the remuneration of holdings of excess reserves and of certain deposits (ECB/2019/31) (OJ L 267, 21.10.2019, p. 12).

2

---
§ 1001.401 Conviction relating to controlled substances. ( a ) *Circumstance for exclusion.* The OIG may exclude an individual or entity convicted under Federal or State law of a misdemeanor relating to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance, as defined under Federal or State law. This section applies to any individual or entity that— ( 1 ) Is, or has ever been, a health care practitioner, provider, or supplier or furnished or furnishes items or services;
( 2 ) Holds, or held, a direct or indirect ownership or control interest in an entity that furnished or furnishes items or services or is or has ever been an officer, director, agent, or managing employee of such an entity; or
( 3 ) Is, or has ever been, employed in any capacity in the health care industry.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the definition of *controlled substance* will be the definition that applies to the law forming the basis for the conviction.
( c ) *Length of exclusion.* ( 1 ) An exclusion imposed in accordance with this section will be for a period of 3 years, unless aggravating or mitigating factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section form a basis for lengthening or shortening that period.
( 2 ) Any of the following factors may be considered to be aggravating and to be a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion— ( i ) The acts that resulted in the conviction or similar acts were committed over a period of one year or more;
( ii ) The acts that resulted in the conviction or similar acts had a significant adverse mental, physical or financial impact on program beneficiaries or other individuals or the Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs;
( iii ) The sentence imposed by the court included incarceration;
( iv ) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil, or administrative wrongdoing;
( v ) Whether the individual or entity has been convicted of other offenses besides those that formed the basis for the exclusion; or
( vi ) Whether the individual or entity has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State, or local government agency or board if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion.
( 3 ) Only the following factor may be considered to be mitigating and to be a basis for shortening the period of exclusion: The individual's or entity's cooperation with Federal or State officials resulted in— ( i ) Others being convicted or excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and any other Federal health care program;
( ii ) Additional cases being investigated or reports being issued by the appropriate law enforcement agency identifying program vulnerabilities or weaknesses; or
( iii ) The imposition of a civil money penalty against others.
[57 FR 3330, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 46687, Sept. 2, 1998; 64 FR 39426, July 22, 1999; 82 FR 4113, Jan. 12, 2017]
1 NO. 03-14-00605-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS HOWARD THOMAS DOUGLAS § APPELLANT VS. § THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 331 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D1-DC-12-900059 STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and 10.5(b), advises the Court as follows: (a) Following his conviction for Securing Execution of a Document by Deception, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above cause on September 17, 2014. Appellant filed a brief on April 24, 2015. (b) The State’s brief is currently due on May 26, 2015

. ACCEPTED 03-14-00605-CR 5413138 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/26/2015 11:09:33 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

(c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by 30 days

. (d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the State’s brief is: none . (e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need for an extension of the deadline:

1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not had sufficient time to prepare an adequate response to this brief. 2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the Court has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above cause.3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended to June 25, 2015. Respectfully submitted, ROSEMARY LEHMBERG District Attorney Travis County, Texas /s/ Lisa Stewart Lisa Stewart Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 06022700 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9400 Fax No. 854-4810 Lisa.Stewart@traviscountytx.gov AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains 231 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i) exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is printed in a conventional, 14-point typeface. /s/ Lisa Stewart Lisa Stewart Assistant District Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on the 26 th day of May, 2015, a true and correct copy of this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney, Craig M. Price, Hammerle Finley Law Firm, 2871 Lake Vista Drive, Suite 150, Lewisville, Texas 75067, [cmp@hammerle.com]. /s/ Lisa Stewart Lisa Stewart Assistant District Attorney
```

[House Document 110-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 110-157

.                   CERTIFICATION FOR AN EXPORT TO THE

                       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

  CERTIFICATION THAT THE EXPORT OF TWO JET MILLS FOR FINE GRINDING OF 
   FRIABLE OR CRYSTALLINE MATERIALS TO BE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF 
SPANDEX FIBER AND SEMICONDUCTOR COMPOUNDS AND ONE SPARE BEAM CENTERLINE 
    THAT WILL BE EXPORTED FOR REPAIR/REPLACEMENT FOR THE CONTINUOUS 
OPERATION OF A CARGO INSPECTION SYSTEM IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED 
   STATES SPACE LAUNCH INDUSTRY, NOR WILL IT MEASURABLY IMPROVE THE 
MISSILE OR SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, 
                 PURSUANT TO PUB. L. 105-261, SEC. 1512

  November 19, 2008.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                      Washington, October 22, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: In accordance with the provisions of 
section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), I 
hereby certify that the export to the People's Republic of 
China of two jet mills for fine grinding of friable or 
crystalline materials to be used in the manufacture of spandex 
fiber and semiconductor compounds and one spare beam centerline 
that will be exported for repair/replacement for the continuous 
operation of a cargo inspection system is not detrimental to 
the U.S. space launch industry, and that the material and 
equipment, including any indirect technical benefit that could 
be derived from such exports, will not measurably improve the 
missile or space launch capabilities of the People's Republic 
of China.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.

                                  

```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00373-CR

Rigoberto Olivarez Silva Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-2639-16-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 31, 2019