alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CAROLINE FEL and ZOHAR GAZIT

, Appellant,

v.

MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 702

[ December 12, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Frank D. Ledee , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 12015890

.

Mark L. Pomeranz of Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., Hallandale, for

appellant.

Nicole R. Ramirez of eXL Legal, PLLC, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., c oncur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 136.321 Eligibility. To be eligible for a preparatory scholarship grant under this subdivision an applicant must: ( a ) Be an Indian;
( b ) Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency;
( c ) Have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary the desire and capability to successfully complete courses of study in a health professions school;
( d ) Be accepted for enrollment in or be enrolled in any compensatory preprofessional education course or curriculum meeting the criteria in § 136.320 of this subdivision; and
( e ) Be a citizen of the United States.
[42 FR 59646, Nov. 18, 1977. Redesignated and amended at 67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002]
HomeUnited Kingdom

# United Kingdom

492 items

        -    DipNote: Education and Culture  		Fulbright in the UK: Cheers to the Special Relationships	  January 12, 2024 
        -    DipNote: Education and Culture  		Pursuing Tech-Driven Solutions to Disrupt Trafficking in Cultural Property Worldwide	  January 11, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Jenkins Travels to London	  January 10, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with UK Foreign Secretary Cameron	  January 2, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Formalization of the Tallinn Mechanism to Coordinate Civilian Cyber Assistance to Ukraine	  December 20, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom	  December 20, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Advancing Global Norms for Higher Airspace Operations	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Higher Airspace Operations (HAO)	  December 18, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Countering Terrorism  		First Counter-Drone FVEY Policy Forum Workshop Furthers Cooperation in Countering Emerging Technology Threats	  December 13, 2023 

previous page1…34567…50next page

Back to Top
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3536

___________ Jeffrey D. Armstrong, Individually, * * Plaintiff, * * William Lawrence, doing business as * Native American Press/Ojibwe News, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Mille Lacs Tribal Police Department; * Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians; * Marc R. Gabiger, Individually, * * Appellees. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 02-3556 District Court for the ___________ District of Minnesota. Jeffrey D. Armstrong, Individually, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant, * * William Lawrence, doing business as * Native American Press/Ojibwe News, * * Plaintiff, * *1 The Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- v. * * Mille Lacs Tribal Police Department; * Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians; * Marc R. Gabiger, Individually, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2003 Filed: May 27, 2003

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Jeffrey D. Armstrong and William Lawrence-- d/b/a Native American Press/Ojibwe News--appeal the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co. , 183 F.3d 902, 904-05 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1157 (2000), we agree with the district court’s thorough analysis; and we decline to address the new arguments and allegations appellants raise, seeOrr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 297 F.3d 720, 725 (8th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Alvernis JENKINS v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institute.

No. 65845.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Alvernis Jenkins, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge. Number unknown.

Denied. Moot.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2820

DARYL D. KEMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF NORFOLK DEPARTMENT OF WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-420-2) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daryl D. Kemp, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Phillip Juren, Deputy City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Daryl D. Kemp appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination under the Americanswith Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kemp v. City of Norfolk , No. CA-98-420-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 137.331 May the Secretary reject a final construction project proposal based on a determination of Tribal capacity or capability?

No, the Secretary may not reject a final construction project proposal based on a determination of Tribal capacity or capability.
§ 555.508 Payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. ( a ) *Professional fees and incurred expenses.* ( 1 ) Receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 555.507(a) to or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201, is authorized from funds originating outside the United States, provided that the funds do not originate from: ( i ) A source within the United States;
( ii ) Any source, wherever located, within the possession or control of a U.S. person; or
( iii ) Any individual or entity, other than the person on whose behalf the legal services authorized pursuant to § 555.506(a) are to be provided, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of this chapter or any Executive order or statute.
( 2 ) Nothing in this paragraph (a) authorizes payments for legal services using funds in which any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201, any other part of this chapter, or any Executive order or statute has an interest.
( b ) *Reports.* ( 1 ) U.S. persons who receive payments pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must submit annual reports no later than 30 days following the end of the calendar year during which the payments were received providing information on the funds received. Such reports shall specify: ( i ) The individual or entity from whom the funds originated and the amount of funds received; and
( ii ) If applicable: ( A ) The names of any individuals or entities providing related services to the U.S. person receiving payment in connection with authorized legal services, such as private investigators or expert witnesses;
( B ) A general description of the services provided; and
( C ) The amount of funds paid in connection with such services.
( 2 ) The reports, which must reference this section, are to be submitted to OFAC using one of the following methods: ( i ) *Email (preferred method): OFACReport@treasury.gov ;* or
( ii ) *U.S. mail:* OFAC Regulations Reports, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220.
#### § 124.10 Additional conditions.

The Secretary may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any grant award when in the Secretary's judgment such conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the project in accordance with the purposes of the Act and the regulations of this subpart or the conservation of grant funds.
#### Clyde C. BOBBITT, Appellant, v. Fred L. SOLOMAN, Appellee.

No. V-49.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 27, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Robert Tod HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Timothy Miller TERRY and Patricia R. Terry, Appellees.

No. 80-1484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, for appellant.

Cuadrado & Sosby, Miami, and Teresa Gail Sosby, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and FERGUSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

The issue at trial was the correct interpretation to be given the terms of a contract. Appellant contends that the language of the instrument was clear and unambiguous and should have been interpreted by the court as a matter of law. Appel-lee contends that the provision in question had a meaning inconsistent with that meaning advanced by appellant. The court submitted the cause to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellees. The issues on appeal are whether the court correctly submitted the question to the jury to interpret the contract and correctly denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.

We have examined the record, particularly the disputed contract provision, and find that the provision is, as determined by the trial court, reasonably susceptible to more than one construction. Because the provision is ambiguous, it was proper to submit the issue to the jury for resolution as a matter of fact. *Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp.,*56 So.2d 515 (Fla.1952); *Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask,*278 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). There was no error in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict. *See, e. g., Hendricks v. Dailey,*208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); *Bruce Construction Corp. v. The State Exchange Bank,*102 So.2d 288 (Fla.1958); *Behar v. Root,*393 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *Laird v. Potter,*367 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.
#### § 586.601 Records and reports.

For provisions relating to required records and reports, see part 501, subpart C, of this chapter. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered requirements arising pursuant to this part.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-KSB of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
I. Sealfon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Andrew I. Sealfon
Andrew I. Sealfon
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

June 10, 2004
HomeIraq

# Iraq

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

416 items

        -    DS Memorial  		John Albert Pinsonneault	  October 14, 2004 
        -    DS Memorial  		Steven Ray Osborne	  October 14, 2004 
        -    DS Memorial  		Eric Miner	  October 14, 2004 
        -    DS Memorial  		Ferdinand Ibabao	  October 14, 2004 
        -    		Richard  Bruce	  June 1, 2004 
        -    DS Memorial  		Richard Bruce	  June 1, 2004 

previous page1…404142

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6886

DON BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN ALAN DUNNIGAN, Attorney,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00666-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: November 16, 2020 Decided: November 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Don Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, we confine our review to the 

issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brown’s informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order.∗

 See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 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 process.

AFFIRMED

∗ Brown’s informal brief raises several new issues, which we decline to consider. 

See Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020). (“It is well established that this 

court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional 

circumstances.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
§ 555.512 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 § 555.512 :
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
# C_2005182EN.01001402.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (1)

1

(Sixth Directive - Article 25 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking - Concept of ‘agricultural service’)

(2005/C 182/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-43/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 4 February 2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Arnsberg and Stadt Sundern — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Article 25 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the common flat-rate scheme for farmers applies only to the supply of agricultural products and agricultural services, as defined in Article 25(2), and that other operations carried out by flat-rate farmers are subject to the general scheme under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 25 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the common flat-rate scheme for farmers applies only to the supply of agricultural products and agricultural services, as defined in Article 25(2), and that other operations carried out by flat-rate farmers are subject to the general scheme under that directive.

| 2. | The fifth indent of Article 25(2) of Directive 77/388, read together with Annex B thereto, is to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of hunting licences by a flat-rate farmer is not an agricultural service within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The fifth indent of Article 25(2) of Directive 77/388, read together with Annex B thereto, is to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of hunting licences by a flat-rate farmer is not an agricultural service within the meaning of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

1

---
§ 1003.300 Basis for civil money penalties, assessments, and exclusions. The OIG may impose a penalty, an assessment, and an exclusion against any person who it determines in accordance with this part— ( a ) Has not refunded on a timely basis, as defined in § 1003.110, amounts collected as a result of billing an individual, third party payer, or other entity for a designated health service furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral as described in 42 CFR 411.353.
( b ) Is a physician or other person who enters into any arrangement or scheme (such as a cross-referral arrangement) that the physician or other person knows, or should know, has a principal purpose of ensuring referrals by the physician to a particular person that, if the physician directly made referrals to such person, would be in violation of the prohibitions of 42 CFR 411.353.
( c ) Has knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, a claim that is for a payment that such person knows, or should know, may not be made under 42 CFR 411.353;
( d ) Has violated section 1128B(b) of the Act by unlawfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for the referral of business paid for, in whole or in part, by Medicare, Medicaid, or other Federal health care programs.
#### § 551.510 Official business of the United States Government.

All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized.
§ 901.11 Use and disclosure of mailing addresses. ( a ) When attempting to locate a debtor in order to collect or compromise a debt under parts 900-904 of this chapter or other authority, agencies may send a request to the Secretary (or designee) to obtain a debtor's mailing address from the records of the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) Agencies are authorized to use mailing addresses obtained under paragraph (a) of this section to enforce collection of a delinquent debt and may disclose such mailing addresses to other agencies and to collection agencies for collection purposes.
# Mauritania

68 items

        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mauritania	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Mauritania	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Mauritania	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mauritania	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 19, 2021WASHINGTON, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		The United States Announces Humanitarian Assistance for the Sahel Crisis Response	  Ned PriceMarch 19, 2021 
        -    		FY 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Vulnerable Populations in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal	  March 16, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Mauritania	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mauritania	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Mauritania	  June 24, 2020 

previous page1…34567next page

Back to Top