alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005193EN.01002801.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/28

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 25 May 2005

in Case T-443/03 Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, SA (Retecal) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Complaint concerning an alleged failure by the Spanish authorities to fulfil their obligations - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 193/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-443/03: Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, SA (Retecal), established in Boecillo (Spain), Euskaltel, SA, established in Zamudio-Vizcaya (Spain), Telecable de Asturias, SA, established in Oviedo (Spain), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, SA, established in La Coruña (Spain), Tenaria, SA, established in Cordovilla (Spain), represented by J. Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: F. Castillo de la Torre, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea), by Sogecable, SA, established in Tres Cantos, Madrid (Spain), represented by S. Martínez Lage and H. Brokelmann, lawyers, and by Telefónica, SA, established in Madrid, represented initially by M. Merola and S. Moreno Sánchez, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Merola — action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2003 to take no further action on the applicants' complaint of an alleged infringement by the Spanish authorities of Article 9(8) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (corrected version, OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13) in the context of the concentration between Vía Digital and Sogecable (Case COMP/M.2845 — Sogecable/Canal Satélite Digital/Vía Digital) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Švaby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission, by Telefónica, SA and by Sogecable, SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission, by Telefónica, SA and by Sogecable, SA.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.

1

---
§ 137.294 What is the typical IHS environmental review process for construction projects? ( a ) Most IHS construction projects normally do not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore do not require environmental impact statements (EIS). Under current IHS procedures, an environmental review is performed on all construction projects. During the IHS environmental review process, the following activities may occur: ( 1 ) Consult with appropriate Tribal, Federal, state, and local officials and interested parties on potential environmental effects;
( 2 ) Document assessment of potential environmental effects; (IHS has developed a form to facilitate this process.)
( 3 ) Perform necessary environmental surveys and inventories;
( 4 ) Consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, acting through the SHPO or THPO, to ensure compliance with the NHPA;
( 5 ) Determine if extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist that would prevent the project from meeting the criteria for categorical exclusion from further environmental review under NEPA, or if an environmental assessment is required;
( 6 ) Obtain environmental permits and approvals; and
( 7 ) Identify methods to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects;
( b ) This section is for informational purposes only and does not create any legal rights or remedies, or imply private rights of action.
# Nauru

34 items

        -    Report  		Nauru	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Nauru (11-908) – Agreement Concerning Operational Cooperation to Suppress Illicit Transnational Maritime Activity	  September 8, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Nauru (07-911) – Agreement Relating to the Employment of Dependents of Official Government Employees	  September 11, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Nauru (03-1204) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  December 4, 2003 

previous page1234

Back to Top
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****FY ... annual report[electronic resource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.27:B 87/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000640881
 
September 12, 2019
#### § 137.134 When does the 45 day review period begin?

The 45 day review period begins from the date the IHS receives the final offer. Proof of receipt may include a date stamp, or postal return receipt, or hand delivery.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3056 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3056

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To permit a county-operated health insuring organization to qualify as 
 an organization exempt from certain requirements otherwise applicable 
      to health insuring organizations under the Medicaid program 
 notwithstanding that the organization enrolls Medicaid beneficiaries 
                      residing in another county.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3056

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To permit a county-operated health insuring organization to qualify as 
 an organization exempt from certain requirements otherwise applicable 
      to health insuring organizations under the Medicaid program 
 notwithstanding that the organization enrolls Medicaid beneficiaries 
                      residing in another county.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH INSURING ORGANIZATIONS TO 
              ENROLL MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES RESIDING IN ANOTHER COUNTY 
              UNDER MEDICAID WAIVER FOR CERTAIN COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH 
              INSURING ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9517(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 1396b note), as 
added by section 4734 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
is amended by inserting ``or counties'' after ``county''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to quarters beginning on or after October 1, 1996.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2005171EN.01003302.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

Action brought on on 4 May 2005 by Julie Samnadda against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-183/05)

(2005/C 171/54)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Julie Samnadda, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision to appoint the applicant as an official of the European Communities in that it fixes her grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to appoint the applicant as an official of the European Communities in that it fixes her grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Cases T-130/05, T-160/05, T-162/05 and T-170/05 and similar to those in Cases T-58/05 and T-164/05.

---
#### RIC-HART DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SUDAN CORPORATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 74-642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeSpain

# Spain

125 items

        -    TIAS  		Spain (23-508.1) – Agreement on the Stationing of Two Additional U.S. Navy Ships at Rota Naval Base	  May 8, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S. Government Announces Sweeping New Actions to Manage Regional Migration	  April 27, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Ambassador Lipstadt’s Remarks from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance	  Deborah LipstadtApril 20, 2023Holocaust Memorial Museum’s National Commemoration of the Days of RemembranceU.S. Capitol  
        -    Remarks  		Ambassador Lipstadt’s Remarks from the Special Envoys and Coordinators Combating Antisemitism Forum	  Deborah LipstadtMarch 21, 2023Madrid, Spain 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Spain	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Spain	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Welcomes Spain’s Repatriation of Nationals from Northeast Syria	  Ned PriceJanuary 11, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador at Large Fick Travels to the OECD Digital Economy Ministerial in Spain	  December 13, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 2, 2022	  Ned PriceDecember 2, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Spain National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 12, 2022 

previous page1…34567…13next page

Back to Top
#### John Anthony BLAIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-366.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT
      32.2













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






18
U.S.C. §1350,






AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




















In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BayHill Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
K. Bench, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.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 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
      Company.













Dated:
April 20,
2009                                         /s/  Robert K.
Bench


Robert K.
Bench


Chief
Financial Officer











This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed 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 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
HomeMontenegro

# Montenegro

76 items

        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Briefing with Ambassador Bonnie Denise Jenkins, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security	  Bonnie Denise JenkinsAugust 25, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Briefing with Gabriel Escobar, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs	  August 5, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Montenegro	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Montenegro	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Montenegro Statehood Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 13, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Montenegro	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Donfried’s Travel to the Western Balkans	  April 21, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Montenegro	  April 12, 2022 
        -    		Western Balkans Sanctions	   
        -    TIAS  		Montenegro (22-323) – Agreement Concerning Leahy Ineligible Units Written Agreement Requirement	  March 23, 2022 

previous page12345…8next page

Back to Top
40750.

#### MOULTRIE v. THE STATE.

Russell, Judge.

“When a motion for new trial is made on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, it must appear by affidavit of the movant and each of his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the trial, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. If the newly-discovered evidence is that of witnesses, affidavits as to their residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility must be ad*84duced.” *Code*§ 70-205. An extraordinary motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, for which reason a certified copy of the brief of evidence on the trial of the case is an absolute prerequisite to a valid motion. *Fields v. State,*212 Ga. 652 (94 SE2d 694). The motion here, filed over eight years after defendant’s conviction, contains no brief of evidence. There is no affidavit of counsel, and it does not appear that counsel was not present assisting the defendant at the trial. There is no statement that the existence of the alleged new evidence was not known at or before the trial, and there are no supporting affidavits.

Decided July 13, 1964.

Warren E. Moultrie, *pro se.*

*Andrew J. Whalen, Jr., Solicitor General,*contra.

The extraordinary motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
§ 558.203 Holding of funds in interest-bearing accounts; investment and reinvestment. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or as otherwise directed or authorized by OFAC, any U.S. person holding funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, subject to § 558.201 shall hold or place such funds in a blocked interest-bearing account located in the United States.
( b ) ( 1 ) For the purposes of this section, the term *blocked interest-bearing account* means a blocked account: ( i ) In a federally insured U.S. bank, thrift institution, or credit union, provided the funds are earning interest at rates that are commercially reasonable; or
( ii ) With a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.*), provided the funds are invested in a money market fund or in U.S. Treasury bills.
( 2 ) Funds held or placed in a blocked account pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may not be invested in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days.
( c ) For the purposes of this section, a rate is commercially reasonable if it is the rate currently offered to other depositors on deposits or instruments of comparable size and maturity.
( d ) For the purposes of this section, if interest is credited to a separate blocked account or subaccount, the name of the account party on each account must be the same.
( e ) Blocked funds held in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days at the time the funds become subject to § 558.201 may continue to be held until maturity in the original instrument, provided any interest, earnings, or other proceeds derived therefrom are paid into a blocked interest-bearing account in accordance with paragraph (a) or (f) of this section.
( f ) Blocked funds held in accounts or instruments outside the United States at the time the funds become subject to § 558.201 may continue to be held in the same type of accounts or instruments, provided the funds earn interest at rates that are commercially reasonable.
( g ) This section does not create an affirmative obligation for the holder of blocked tangible property, such as real or personal property, or of other blocked property, such as debt or equity securities, to sell or liquidate such property. However, OFAC may issue licenses permitting or directing such sales or liquidation in appropriate cases.
( h ) Funds blocked pursuant to § 558.201 may not be held, invested, or reinvested in a manner that provides financial or economic benefit or access to any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 558.201, nor may their holder cooperate in or facilitate the pledging or other attempted use as collateral of blocked funds or other assets.
§ 136.360 Leases with Indian tribes. ( a ) Any land or facilities otherwise authorized to be acquired, constructed, or leased to carry out the purposes of the Act may be leased or subleased from Indian tribes for periods not in excess of twenty years.
( b ) Leases entered into pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be subject to the requirements of section 322 of the Economy Act (40 U.S.C. 278a), which limits expenditures for rent and alterations, improvements and repairs on leased buildings.
# C_2005196EN.01000401.xml

| 11.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3830 — Goldman Sachs/Treofan)

(2005/C 196/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3830. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3830. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### § 136a.57 Confidentiality.

Information which is acquired in connection with the requirements of this subpart may not be disclosed in a form which permits the identification of an individual without the individual's consent, except as may be necessary for the health of the individual or as may be necessary for the Secretary to monitor Indian Health Service program activities. In any event, any disclosure shall be subject to appropriate safeguards which will minimize the likelihood of disclosures of personal information in identifiable form.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl H. WEBSTER.

No. 80-K-1434.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1980.

In re Carl H. Webster, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jefferson. No. 80-930.

Denied.
§ 136.21 Definitions. ( a ) *Alternate resources* is defined in § 136.61 of subpart G of this part.
( b ) *Appropriate ordering official* means, unless otherwise specified by contract with the health care facility or provider, the ordering official for the contract health service delivery area in which the individual requesting contract health services or on whose behalf the services are requested, resides.
( c ) *Area Director* means the Director of an Indian Health Service Area designated for purposes of administration of Indian Health Service programs.
( d ) *Contract health service delivery area means* the geographic area within which contract health services will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area, subject to the provisions of this subpart.
( e ) *Contract health services* means health services provided at the expense of the Indian Health Service from public or private medical or hospital facilities other than those of the Service.
( f ) *Emergency* means any medical condition for which immediate medical attention is necessary to prevent the death or serious impairment of the health of an individual.
( g ) *Indian tribe* means any Indian tribe, band, nation, group, Pueblo, or community, including any Alaska Native village or Native group, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.
( h ) *Program Director* means the Director of an Indian Health Service “program area” designated for the purposes of administration of Indian Health Service programs.
( i ) *Reservation* means any federally recognized Indian tribe's reservation. Pueblo, or colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*), and Indian allotments.
( j ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services to whom the authority involved has been delegated.
( k ) *Service* means the Indian Health Service.
( l ) *Service Unit Director* means the Director of an Indian Health Service “Service unit area” designated for purposes of administration of Indian Health Service programs.
[64 FR 58320, Oct. 28, 1999. Redesignated and amended at 67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002]