alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005296EN.01001101.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State) by order of that court of 19 July 2005 in Minister for immigration and integration v Mr I. Günes

(Case C-296/05)

(2005/C 296/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council of State) of 19 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the Minister for immigration and integration and Mr I. Günes on the following questions:

| 1. | Must the concept of restriction in Article 41(1) of the additional protocol be interpreted as subsuming within it the requirement of a temporary residence authorisation to be applied for, under Article 3.71, first paragraph, of the Vb 2000, by a foreigner who is a Turkish national in that country or the country of permanent residence and in regard to which he must await a decision prior to coming to the Netherlands in the absence of which his application for leave to remain must be rejected? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of restriction in Article 41(1) of the additional protocol be interpreted as subsuming within it the requirement of a temporary residence authorisation to be applied for, under Article 3.71, first paragraph, of the Vb 2000, by a foreigner who is a Turkish national in that country or the country of permanent residence and in regard to which he must await a decision prior to coming to the Netherlands in the absence of which his application for leave to remain must be rejected?

| 2a. | If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative, must Article 41(1) of the additional protocol then be construed as meaning that a new restriction within the meaning of that provision is also constituted by a tightening of the national rules in regard to the requirement to be in possession of a temporary residence authorisation following a post-January 1973 relaxation of that requirement? |
| --- | --- |

2a.

If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative, must Article 41(1) of the additional protocol then be construed as meaning that a new restriction within the meaning of that provision is also constituted by a tightening of the national rules in regard to the requirement to be in possession of a temporary residence authorisation following a post-January 1973 relaxation of that requirement?

| 2b. | Is the reply to Question 2a different if the relaxation concerning the requirement of possession of a temporary residence authorisation was effected not in regard to the regulatory provision itself but in regard to policy and implementing practice? |
| --- | --- |

2b.

Is the reply to Question 2a different if the relaxation concerning the requirement of possession of a temporary residence authorisation was effected not in regard to the regulatory provision itself but in regard to policy and implementing practice?

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BayHill Capital Corporation(the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K. Bench, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.	The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 

 

Dated: May 2, 2011	 /s/ Robert K. Bench

Robert K. Bench

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## 

EXHIBIT 10(f)

AMENDMENT  July 26, 2000

The Minntech Corporation 1990 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated effective as of June 1, 1998, is hereby further amended by action of
the Board of Directors effective as of July 26, 2000 as follows:



The
maximum number of shares subject to purchase by a Participant shall be equal to the total amount to be credited to the Participant's account under Section 5 hereof divided
by the lower of the option price set forth in Section 6(b)(i) and the option price set forth in Section 6(b)(ii), below.

---

## QuickLinks
#### William Crawford, complainant, *v.*Township of Maplewood et al., defendants.

[Decided December 26th, 1929.]

*Mr. Harry Silverstein,*for the motion.

*Messrs. Pesin & Pesin, contra.*

Beery, V. C.

This is a motion to. strike out a bill of complaint filed to enforce a municipal mechanics’ lien. The motion is based upon several grounds set out in the notice of motion, but it is necessary to consider but one of those grounds, viz., that .the suit to enforce the lien was not brought within the time limited by section 4 of the Municipal Mechanics’ Lien act. *P. L. 1918 p. 1041; 1 Cum. Supp. Comp. Stat. p. 1860.*

The bill of complaint alleges that the lien claim was filed with the municipality on August 22d, 1929. The bill was filed on October 21st, 1929, and subpoena was issued on November 19th, 1929. The statute provides that "no lien provided for in this act shall be binding on the funds of the municipality therein referred to unless an action to enforce the lien claim be brought within sixty days from the filing *417thereof.” Suit is begun in the court of chancery, or “brought,” only by the filing of a bill and the issuance of subpoena. Hau*ghwout*v. *Murphy, 22 N. J. Eq. 531; Hermann,*v. *Petroleum Corp., 85 N. J. Eq. 367; Haupt Co.*v. *Board of Education of Edgewater (Court of Errors and Appeals), 87 N. J. Eq. 362.*It seems clear, on the authority of the cases cited, that suit was not “brought” within the time limited by the act, as, although the bill was filed on the sixtieth day succeeding the filing of the claim with the municipality, subpoena was not issued until twenty-nine days thereafter. The bill, therefore, cannot be maintained.

It is argued that the bill should not be dismissed, as the complainant could, if given an opportunity to do so, show that the delay in the service of the subpoena was excusable because of negotiations for settlement and that the defect was cured by the acknowledgment of service by the solicitor of the municipality, and the language of Vice-Chancellor Backes in *Delaware River Quarry and Construction Co.*v. *Board of Chosen Freeholders, 88 N. J. Eq. 506,*to the effect that “suits in chancery are commenced by the issuance and service of subpoena or the making of a *bona fide*attempt to serve it after the bill has been filed,” is cited in support of this contention. It appears from the file that the subpoena was issued on November 19th, 1939, as already stated, and that service was acknowledged on November 35th, 1939. It is quite clear that no *bona fide*attempt to serve the subpoena could have been made before it was issued. The statutory requirement not having been complied with the bill must be dismissed.
HomeCentral African Republic

# Central African Republic

62 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Children and Armed Conflict in CAR, DRC, South Sudan, and/or Yemen	  June 3, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Central African Republic	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Central African Republic	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Imposing Sanctions on CAR Militia Leader	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 17, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Central African Republic National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 1, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint U.S.-EU Statement on the Global Methane Pledge	  October 11, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-441)	  July 12, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Central African Republic	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Central African Republic	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Central African Republic	  May 12, 2021 

previous page1234567next page

Back to Top
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Charles Lee Levan, Jr., * From the 29th District Court

 of Palo Pinto County,

 Trial Court No. 11,625.

Vs. No. 11-23-00286-CR * January 4, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46298-46299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New 
Hampshire, Vermont and Maine)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 
718-488-2085.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. 
Jenkins. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1-888-912-
1227 or 718-488-2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 
Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.

[[Page 46299]]

    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-21465 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Conroy

# 											Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Conroy									

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

April 10, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met yesterday with Australia’s Minister for Defense Industry, Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy. The two discussed ongoing efforts to deepen engagement with Pacific Island partner countries and through the Pacific Islands Forum to advance economic opportunity, digital connectivity, climate resilience, and security.

Separately, the Deputy and the Minister reviewed AUKUS implementation, reflecting on the significant progress made since the March 2023 Leader’s announcement in San Diego, and discussed next steps to enable deeper defense and security cooperation between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

Tags

AustraliaBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
# Syria

340 items

        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Syria	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 29, 2021 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL FY20 Supporting Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Syria	  April 27, 2021 
        -    Other Release  		Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Embassies Briefing	  April 22, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 22, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 22, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		OPCW Condemns Syria’s Repeated Use of Chemical Weapons	  April 22, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 21, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 21, 2021 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Syrian Women’s Participation in Transitional Justice Processes	  April 19, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		OPCW Charges Syrian Regime with Chemical Weapons Attack	  Ned PriceApril 14, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 1, 2021Washington, DC 

previous page1…2728293031…34next page

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3137 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3137

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the reasonable 
 cause exception from the penalty for failures to file tax returns or 
                               pay taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1996

   Mr. Bunning of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the reasonable 
 cause exception from the penalty for failures to file tax returns or 
                               pay taxes.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE EXCEPTION FOR FAILURE TO 
              FILE TAX RETURN OR PAY TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 6651 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to failure to file return or pay tax) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Clarification of Reasonable Cause Exception.--A failure 
referred to in subsection (a) with respect to any return or payment 
shall be treated as due to reasonable cause and not due to willful 
neglect if--
            ``(1) such failure is by an employee or agent of the 
        taxpayer who, on or before the due date for such return or 
        payment, submitted false documents to the taxpayer showing that 
        such return or payment was timely made, and
            ``(2) the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and 
        prudence in attempting to assure that such a failure would not 
        occur and had no reason to know on or before such date that 
        such failure occurred.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to failures after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### MANUEL R. OTERO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO JOSE OTERO, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE NAVAJO INDIANS.

[Indian Depredation

No. 1895.

Decided January 21, 1918.]

*On Plaintiff's Motion.*

*Proofs.*— In an action for an alleged Indian depredation the evidence will not be considered separately from related depredations where it is shown to be so intimately identified with other depredation claims as to render proof of ownership uncertain.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. William E. Harvey*for the motion. *King <& King*were on the briefs.

*Mr. George T. Stormooit,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston*Thompson, opposed.

*169Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an Indian depredation case and before the court now upon a motion to make findings of fact. The motion for findings will be allowed, the prior judgment of dismissal to stand. The record in the case considered separately from related depredations and events might be sufficient to warrant a judgment for the plaintiff. It can not be so considered, however, for the alleged depredation is so clearly interwoven and so intimately identified with claims for depredations under exactly similar circumstances at or near the time alleged, that the court is unable to find with any degree of certainty that this plaintiff owned the property claimed or that the same was lost at the time and place alleged. We are led to this conclusion by a circumstance very impressive and not usually forgotten, *i. e.,*the murder of three of the herders in charge of plaintiff’s sheep at the time of the Indian invasion. The witnesses in this case as well as the witnesses in cases 1897, 3826, and 2062 identify the depredations positively by testifying to this particular circumstance, and while there is some slight variance as to details, the murder of the herders is the predominant event which fixes the time and place of the raid and the ownership of the property. Proof submitted several decades subsequent to this event as to ownership of the property which directly contradicts contemporaneous statements in writing is not convincing, especially so when we find a substantial judgment awarded the plaintiffs in No. 3826, one of whom was the alleged partner of the present plaintiff residing in the same locality with the latter. The confusion incident to ownership and date of depredation is not cleared up by the present record. It is far too uncertain to warrant a money judgment in the case.

Motion for findings is allowed. Findings this day filed. Prior judgment of dismissal to stand.

Hay, *Judge;*Downey, *Judge;*Barney, *Judge;*and Campbell, *Chief*Justice, concur.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.103 Prohibition against financial and other incentives. ( a ) *General rule.* An employer or other entity (for example, an insurer) is prohibited from offering Medicare beneficiaries financial or other benefits as incentives not to enroll in, or to terminate enrollment in, a GHP that is, or would be, primary to Medicare. This prohibition precludes offering to Medicare beneficiaries an alternative to the employer primary plan (for example, coverage of prescription drugs) unless the beneficiary has primary coverage other than Medicare. An example would be primary coverage through his own or a spouse's employer.
( b ) *Penalty for violation.* ( 1 ) Any entity that violates the prohibition of paragraph (a) of this section is subject to a civil money penalty of up to $5,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 for each violation; and
( 2 ) The provisions of section 1128A of the Act (other than subsections (a) and (b)) apply to the civil money penalty of up to $5,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 in the same manner as the provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section 1128A(a).
[60 FR 45362, Aug. 31, 1995, as amended at 81 FR 61561, Sept. 6, 2016]
Opinion issued January 2 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00129
- CV

——————————— JUSDEN A. KUKOWSKI, JESSE DAVID HARTUNG D/B/A H & H HAULING, INC
. AND H & H HAULING, INC. , Appellant s V. BRYCE G. BURT ON , Appellee

O n Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13
- CV
- 1174

MEMORANDUM OPINION The parties have filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a). No opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c).2 Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a). A ll pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale , Brown , and Huddle

.
HomeFostering Inclusive Economic Growth...Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI)

# 									Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI)							

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

The Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI) aims to boost energy security and sustainable economic growth in the region by attracting investment in a range of energy technologies through a focus on **improved governance, increased access to finance, and strengthened coordination among energy donors, governments, and stakeholders.** Since CESI’s launch, the United States has taken significant steps in a number of concrete areas:

#### Governance

Through targeted technical and policy assistance programs, the United States partners with governments to put in place the legal, regulatory, and policy frameworks required to introduce new technologies and approaches to managing electricity load in small island markets, while also recognizing that electric utilities need to stay financially viable. U.S. agencies have provided technical assistance to a number of Caribbean island nations, including St. Kitts and Nevis, Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Antigua and Barbuda.

#### Finance

U.S. development finance can catalyze private sector interest and investment in the region and help demonstrate that the Caribbean can be an attractive location for a wide range of well-prepared clean energy projects. Since CESI’s launch, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has financed over $120 million in energy deals in the Caribbean. Through the Clean Energy Finance Facility for the Caribbean and Central America (CEFF-CCA), jointly implemented by OPIC, and USAID, the United States is providing up to $20 million in grant funding to help promising projects address early stage development challenges and achieve bankability.

#### Donor Coordination

The United States is providing technical support to the Secretariat of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to implement a virtual platform to facilitate regional energy planning, program development, and project deployment. This platform will serve to improve communication and coordination among international energy assistance partners and between these partners and regional governments to reduce duplication of effort, minimize burden on overtaxed energy ministry staff, and ensure the support that development partners offer is in line with what the region requests.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsEnergy

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top