alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1001.901 False or improper claims. ( a ) *Circumstance for exclusion.* The OIG may exclude any individual or entity that it determines has committed an act described in section 1128A of the Act. The imposition of a civil money penalty or assessment is not a prerequisite for an exclusion under this section.
( b ) *Length of exclusion.* In determining the length of an exclusion imposed in accordance with this section, the OIG will consider the following factors— ( 1 ) The nature and circumstances surrounding the actions that are the basis for liability, including the period of time over which the acts occurred, the number of acts, whether there is evidence of a pattern and the amount claimed;
( 2 ) The degree of culpability;
( 3 ) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil or administrative wrongdoing (The lack of any prior record is to be considered neutral);
( 4 ) 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; or
( 5 ) Other matters as justice may require.
( c ) *Limitations.* The OIG may not impose an exclusion under this section more than 10 years after the date when an act which is described in section 1128A of the Act occurred.
[57 FR 3330, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 46689, Sept. 2, 1998; 82 FR 4114, Jan. 12, 2017]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135233 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

JOHN JAAKKOLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135233 

 COA: 279787 

Gogebic CC: 07-000084-AV 

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 22, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000725394
<NAME>                        IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES COPRORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  4-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,413,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    439,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,224,000
<PP&E>                                         927,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,227,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,299,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,575,000
<COMMON>                                       217,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (17,864,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,227,000
<SALES>                                        940,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,053,000
<CGS>                                          693,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,720,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,825,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,825,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.12)



</TABLE>
§ 1003.520 Determinations regarding the amount of penalties and the period of exclusion. In considering the factors listed in § 1003.140, ( a ) It should be considered a mitigating circumstance if a hospital took appropriate and timely corrective action in response to the violation. For purposes of this subpart, corrective action must be completed prior to CMS initiating an investigation of the hospital for violations of section 1867 of the Act and must include disclosing the violation to CMS prior to CMS receiving a complaint regarding the violation from another source or otherwise learning of the violation.
( b ) Aggravating circumstances include: ( 1 ) Requesting proof of insurance, prior authorization, or a monetary payment prior to appropriately screening or initiating stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition, or requesting a monetary payment prior to stabilizing an emergency medical condition;
( 2 ) Patient harm, or risk of patient harm, resulted from the incident; or
( 3 ) The individual presented to the hospital with a request for examination or treatment of a medical condition that was an emergency medical condition, as defined by § 489.24(b) of this title.
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1683

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Gregory Mark Nairn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 19, 2003 

 Filed: September 26, 2003

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Mark Nairn (Nairn) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846 (2000) (Count 1);

possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 2); and being a drug user in possession of firearms, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (Count 3). The court sentenced him to concurrent

prison terms of 120 months (the statutory minimum) on Count 1 and 24 months on
-2-

Count 3, and a mandatory consecutive 60-month term on Count 2, plus 5 years

supervised release. 

On appeal, for the first time, Nairn argues the district court erred in not

applying a mitigating-role reduction, given his lesser role in the conspiracy offense

and the government’s failure to offer a departure motion despite his cooperation.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not plainly err

in sentencing Nairn: the court was without authority to sentence him below the

statutory minimum absent a motion by the government, the government was under no

obligation to file a substantial-assistance departure motion, and Nairn made no

showing the government’s decision not to file a departure motion was motivated by

anything other than its belief he had not been truthful. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e);

United States v. Wolf, 270 F.3d 1188, 1189-92 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v.

Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### Barbara BAINBRIDGE, Appellant, v. The Honorable C. P. RUBIERA, Chief Judge of the County Court, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1661.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 7, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Combating Systemic Corruption in Haiti

# 									Combating Systemic Corruption in Haiti							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 5, 2023

Today, the United States is taking action to support the people of Haiti and respond to the ongoing instability in the country by imposing visa restrictions and financial sanctions on former President of the Haitian Chamber of Deputies Gary Bodeau for his involvement in corruption.

The Department of State is publicly designating Bodeau under Section 7031(c), rendering him generally ineligible for entry into the United States. Concurrently, the Department of the Treasury is designating Bodeau under the Global Magnitsky sanctions program and as a result of this action Bodeau’s financial assets in the United States have been blocked.

The United States and its partners will continue to use all tools at our disposal to support the Haitian people and promote accountability for corrupt actors who exploit the Haitian people and contribute to the ongoing instability in Haiti.

*The Department of State designated Bodeau under Section 7031(c) of the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for involvement in significant corruption. The Department of the Treasury designated Bodeau pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which builds on and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, for involvement in corruption. For additional information on today’s actions, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.*

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionHaitiOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateVisas

Back to Top
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Brooke Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the period ended June 30, 2008.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

                    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange                           ( print page 45268)                        Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, August 28, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 11, 2009.                

By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-21142 Filed 8-28-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
HomePhilippines

# Philippines

195 items

        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Support for the Philippines in the South China Sea	  November 10, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Captain Claudine Caluori, U.S. Navy, Mission Commander of Pacific Partnership 2023	  November 3, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Support for our Philippine Allies in the Face of Repeated PRC Harassment in the South China Sea	  October 22, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Manila, Philippines: International School Manila: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 18, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Japanese Foreign Minister Kamikawa Yoko and Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Enrique Manalo Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 22, 2023Palace HotelNew York City, New York 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Kamikawa And Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Manalo	  September 22, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with David M. Turk, U.S. Department of Energy	  August 24, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to Indonesia and the Philippines	  August 21, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S.-Philippines Energy Policy Dialogue	  August 19, 2023 
        -    Child Protection  		Richland Man Sentenced to 25 Years in Federal Prison for Producing Child Pornography	  August 14, 2023 

previous page1…34567…20next page

Back to Top
§ 137.350 Is a Self-Governance Tribe responsible for completing a construction project in accordance with the negotiated construction project agreement? Yes, a Self-Governance Tribe assumes responsibility for completing a construction project, including day-to-day on-site management and administration of the project, in accordance with the negotiated construction project agreement. However, Self-Governance Tribes are not required to perform beyond the amount of funds provided. For example, a Self-Governance Tribe may encounter unforeseen circumstances during the term of a construction project agreement. If this occurs, options available to the Self-Governance Tribe include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Reallocating existing funding;
( b ) Reducing/revising the scope of work that does not require an amendment because it does not result in a significant change;
( c ) Utilizing savings from other projects;
( d ) Requesting additional funds or appropriations;
( e ) Utilizing interest earnings;
( f ) Seeking funds from other sources; and/or
( g ) Redesigning or re-scoping that does result in a significant change by amendment as provided in §§ 137.363 and 137.364.
# Sweden

253 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 11, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 29, 2023	  Matthew MillerJune 29, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 26, 2023	  Matthew MillerJune 26, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  June 21, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Türkiye Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 21, 2023Intercontinental O2 HotelLondon, United Kingdom 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Sweden	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerJune 14, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg	  June 13, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 13, 2023Treaty RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 12, 2023Treaty RoomWashington, DC 

previous page1…56789…26next page

Back to Top
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            of Apogee Robotics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Apogee Robotics, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Apogee Robotics, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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: August 28, 2007


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 800.602 Role of the Secretary of Labor.

In response to a request from the Chairperson of the Committee, the Secretary of Labor shall identify for the Committee any risk mitigation provisions proposed to or by the Committee that would violate U.S. employment laws or require a party to violate U.S. employment laws. The Secretary of Labor shall serve no policy role on the Committee.
#### § 800.1102 Timing of payment.

Subject to §§ 800.1106 through 800.1108, the Staff Chairperson shall not accept a formal written notice under § 800.503(a) until payment of any fee required under this subpart is received by the Department of the Treasury in the manner specified on the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                               This   Schedule    contains   summary   financial
                               information    extracted   from   the   Condensed
                               Consolidated  Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 and
                               the   Condensed   Consolidated    Statements   of
                               Operations  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
                               reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                   U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                          1,840,106 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,451,214 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      238,883 
<INVENTORY>                                     6,912,631 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,462,701 
<PP&E>                                         18,218,100 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  5,383,238 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,324,135 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,293,491 
<BONDS>                                         2,383,324 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  16 
<PREFERRED>                                             0 
<COMMON>                                          317,652 
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,892,372 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,324,135 
<SALES>                                        15,899,092 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,899,092 
<CGS>                                           9,394,372 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,020,140 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,298,767 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                134,611 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,325,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      556,300 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,894,633)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,894,633)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.78)
                                               

</TABLE>
- Home
- Cases Filed Against the Dominican Republic
- Cases Filed Against Guatemala
- Cases Filed Against Nicaragua
- Cases Filed Against the United States

HomeInternational Claims and Investment Disputes...CAFTA-DR Investor-State Arbitrations

# 									CAFTA-DR Investor-State Arbitrations							

Office of the Legal Adviser

		CAFTA-DR Investor-State Arbitrations Archive		

**For more information please seeState Department Archives**

Chapter Ten of the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (the “CAFTA-DR”) contains provisions designed to protect foreign investors and their investments and to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes. For example, each CAFTA-DR Party must accord investors from the other CAFTA-DR Parties national (i.e. non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors in violation of international law. Chapter Ten permits an investor of one CAFTA-DR Party to make a legal claim for money damages for measures taken by another CAFTA-DR Party that allegedly violate the provisions of Chapter Ten. Investors may initiate an arbitration against the CAFTA-DR Party under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings or under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL Rules”).

The following links provide general background on the CAFTA-DR, the relevant arbitral rules and investment disputes:
        - U.S. Department of State,  Office of Investment Affairs
        - U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration,  Export.gov: U.S. – CAFTA-DR FTA 
        - U.S. Trade Representative,  Dominican Republic – Central America FTA 
        - OAS Trade Unit’s Foreign Trade Information System 
        - International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 
        - United Nations Commission on International Trade Law   (UNCITRAL)

The Department of State is the lead agency representing the U.S. government in NAFTA Chapter Eleven cases. The State Department works closely with other agencies to develop U.S. government positions in these cases.

The links at the left connect to pages describing any cases against a State Party and contain pleadings and certain other documents that are publicly available under the rules and confidentiality agreements applicable in each case.

For more information, contact:

Office of International Claims and Investment DisputesInvestment ArbitrationSuite 203, South Building2430 E Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037tel: 202-776-8360fax: 202-776-8388

Notices and other documents in disputes under Section B of CAFTA-DR Chapter 10 shall be served on the United States by delivery to:

Executive Director (L/EX)Office of the Legal AdviserDepartment of StateWashington, D.C. 20520United States of America

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsLegal Adviser

Back to Top