alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 137.425 How does an Indian Tribe appeal the initial decision if it does not request an informal conference or if it does not agree with the recommended decision resulting from the informal conference? ( a ) If the Indian Tribe decides to appeal, it must file a notice of appeal with the IBIA within 30 days of receiving either the initial decision or the recommended decision from the informal conference.
( b ) The Indian Tribe may either hand-deliver the notice of appeal to the IBIA, or mail it by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the Indian Tribe mails the Notice of Appeal, it will be considered filed on the date the Indian Tribe mailed it by certified mail. The Indian Tribe should mail the notice of appeal to: Board of Indian Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior,801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203.
( c ) The Notice of Appeal must: ( 1 ) Briefly state why the Indian Tribe thinks the initial decision is wrong;
( 2 ) Briefly identify the issues involved in the appeal; and
( 3 ) State whether the Indian Tribe wants a hearing on the record, or whether the Indian Tribe wants to waive its right to a hearing.
( d ) The Indian Tribe must serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon the official whose decision it is appealing. The Indian Tribe must certify to the IBIA that it has done so.
( e ) The authorized representative of the Secretary will be considered a party to all appeals filed with the IBIA under the Act.
( f ) In lieu of filing an administrative appeal an Indian Tribe may proceed directly to Federal court pursuant to section 110 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450m-1].
[67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 64353, Oct. 23, 2015]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3035

To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1996

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in the case of Rita Bennington—

4 (1) who purchased her new principal residence

5 (within the meaning of section 1034 of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986) in January 1992, and

7 (2) who was unable to meet the requirements of

8 such section with respect to the sale of an old prin9 cipal residence until May 1994, because of unex10 pected delays caused by Hurricane Iniki,
2

•HR 3035 IH

1 the Secretary of the Treasury, in the administration of

2 section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall

3 apply subsection (a) of such section by substituting ‘‘2.5

4 years’’ for ‘‘2 years’’ each place it appears.

Æ
#### Toni WIRT, Appellant, v. FONTAINBLEAU HOTEL CORPORATION, INC., and Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 74-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 3, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1975.

Bernstein & Robrish, Coconut Grove, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff suffered a directed verdict at the close of her case in an action arising out of a slip-and-fall accident at the Fon-tainbleau Hotel.

The plaintiff contended that she fell while descending stairs on the hotel’s property due to a missing piece of stair on the stairway.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, and have concluded that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff including all reasonable inferences which might be drawn in her favor, does not establish a prima facie case of negligence.

The evidence only supports a finding that an accident occurred, without adequate proof that a defect in the stairs caused the plaintiff to fall. See, Abrams v. Nolan Brown Cadillac Company, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 131.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Kuwaiti Deputy Foreign Minister Dhafiri

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Kuwaiti Deputy Foreign Minister Dhafiri							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

March 1, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman spoke today with Kuwaiti Deputy Foreign Minister Majdi Dhafiri. The Deputy Secretary thanked the Deputy Foreign Minister for showing solidarity with Ukraine and for joining the United States and the international community in condemning violations of Ukrainian sovereignty, which Russia has perpetrated through an unprovoked, unjustified, and premeditated war. Kuwait sent a swift and strong message by co-sponsoring the resolutions in both the UN Security Council and General Assembly condemning aggression against Ukraine. Deputy Secretary Sherman and Deputy Foreign Minister Dhafiri discussed the imperative need for the international community to stand together against Russia’s violation of international law.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsKuwaitOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaUkraine

Back to Top
# Indonesia

201 items

        -    Report  		Indonesia	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Indonesia	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Indonesia	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Indonesia	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Indonesia (16-1223.2) – Science and Technology Implementing Arrangement on Infectious Disease Research	  December 23, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Program Management  		Lacey Act Amendment Programming (Summary)	  July 28, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) Program (Summary)	   
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		International Religious Freedom Program (Summary)	  March 25, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction – Metrics Implementation (Summary)	  February 29, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Indonesia (14-1212.1) – Amendment to the Agreement of September 29, 2014 Regarding a Debt-For-Nature Swap with Respect to Certain Debt Owed by Indonesia to the United States of America	  December 12, 2014 

previous page1…161718192021next page

Back to Top
#### John Louis SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. Lennie TIGNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 74-775, 74-719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 17, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1975.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar,' Asst. Public Defender, for appellant Smith.

Mazar & Mora, Miami, for appellant Tigner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elliott H. Scherker, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants were charged by information with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. They were tried by jury, found guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny and were so adjudged; whereupon, Smith was sentenced to a term of five years in the state penitentiary, and Tigner was placer on probation for a period of five years.

On appeal, both defendants contend that the court erred in denying their motions for mistrial and for a new trial because the prosecutor’s actions and remarks in the presence of the jury were so prejudicial as to deny their right to a fair trial. After careful review of the record, we find there to be no reversible error because neither the remarks nor the actions are prejudicial.

Each case must be considered upon its own merits and within the circumstances pertaining when the allegedly prejudicial remark is made. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340. In the instant case, the remarks are no more than comments upon the failure to provide explanations of incriminating circumstances, and as such, they are not reversible. See State v. Hines, Fla.1967, 195 So.2d 550; Reilly v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 796, cert. den. 396 U.S. 1046, 90 S.Ct. 697, 24 L.Ed.2d 690 (1970). Wide latitude is permitted on cross-examination of witnesses, and limitations on the range are within the discretion of the trial court. Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180.

Defendant Tigner raised a second point on appeal, relating to sufficiency of the evidence. We have considered the issue, and find it to be without merit.

Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, we hereby affirm.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 410

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 410 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

#### § 410.35 X-ray therapy and other radiation therapy services: Scope.

Medicare Part B pays for X-ray therapy and other radiation therapy services, including radium therapy and radioactive isotope therapy, and materials and the services of technicians administering the treatment.

[51 FR 41339, Nov. 14, 1986. Redesignated at 55 FR 53522, Dec. 31, 1990]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 279 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 279

 To categorize payments from lobbyists to, or on behalf of, Members of 
            Congress as bribery under Federal criminal law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To categorize payments from lobbyists to, or on behalf of, Members of 
            Congress as bribery under Federal criminal law.

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

SECTION 1. LOBBYIST PAYMENTS TO, OR ON BEHALF OF, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
              AS BRIBERY UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.

    Any payment of money or any other thing of value to, or on behalf 
of, a Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress from a professional lobbying organization 
or individual professional lobbyist for legislation shall constitute 
bribery under Federal criminal law.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2005296EN.01001802.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/18

---

Removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 296/35)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 24 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Prima Penale): in criminal proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo, Marco Banatti.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3073 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3073

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to allow the continued 
               operation of certain overlapping stations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 1996

Mrs. Roukema (for herself and Mr. Torricelli) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to allow the continued 
               operation of certain overlapping stations.

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

SECTION 1. FM TRANSLATOR STATIONS.

    Section 331 of the Act (47 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) FM Translator Stations.--It shall be the policy of the 
Commission, to extend to licensed FM translator stations, operating in 
a county which has a population of more than 750,000 persons that lacks 
a commercial FM station assignment--
            ``(1) authority for local programming origination, provided 
        such FM translator station abides by all rules and regulations 
        of the Commission regarding program material, content, and 
        schedule, which authority shall be effective upon written 
        notification to the Commission from the licensee of the FM 
        translator station; and
            ``(2) authority to operate with an effective radiated power 
        not to exceed 1,000 watts, if--
                    ``(A) the FM translator station is not located 
                within 320 kilometers (approximately 199 miles) of 
                either the Canadian or Mexican borders,
                    ``(B) the FM translator station's interfering 
                contour would not create a new area of overlap 
                attributable only to the FM translator station within 
                the protected contour of a cochannel or first-adjacent 
                channel facility, and
                    ``(C) the FM translator station complies with the 
                requirements of part 74 of the regulations of the 
                Commission (47 C.F.R. 74.1 et seq.),
        which authority shall be effective upon grant of a minor change 
        application for construction permit.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

I, Donald C. Grenesko, the Senior
Vice President/Finance and Administration of Tribune Company, certify that (i) Tribune
Companys Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2004 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations
of Tribune Company.

| | /s/ 
        Donald C. Grenesko         Donald C. Grenesko     
           Senior Vice President/         Finance and Administration  
                  July 30, 2004
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 3.408 Factors considered in determining the amount of a civil money penalty. In determining the amount of any civil money penalty, the Secretary may consider as aggravating or mitigating factors, as appropriate, any of the following: ( a ) The nature of the violation.
( b ) The circumstances, including the consequences, of the violation, including: ( 1 ) The time period during which the violation(s) occurred; and
( 2 ) Whether the violation caused physical or financial harm or reputational damage;
( c ) The degree of culpability of the respondent, including: ( 1 ) Whether the violation was intentional; and
( 2 ) Whether the violation was beyond the direct control of the respondent.
( d ) Any history of prior compliance with the Patient Safety Act, including violations, by the respondent, including: ( 1 ) Whether the current violation is the same or similar to prior violation(s);
( 2 ) Whether and to what extent the respondent has attempted to correct previous violations;
( 3 ) How the respondent has responded to technical assistance from the Secretary provided in the context of a compliance effort; and
( 4 ) How the respondent has responded to prior complaints.
( e ) The financial condition of the respondent, including: ( 1 ) Whether the respondent had financial difficulties that affected its ability to comply;
( 2 ) Whether the imposition of a civil money penalty would jeopardize the ability of the respondent to continue to provide health care or patient safety activities; and
( 3 ) The size of the respondent.
( f ) Such other matters as justice may require.
§ 560.546 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note to § 560.546 :
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 560.213 of this part concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
39906, 39907, 39908.

#### FELDMAN v. EDWARDS et al. (three cases).

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Bruce B. Edwards represented the claimants in three workmen’s compensation proceedings and during the period that the litigation continued he associated Albert P. Feldman as associate counsel. Thereafter, lump sum agreements were approved by the board in each case. At the same time Edwards’ fee contracts with the claimants were approved and the payment of the attorney’s fees to Edwards and the balance due to the claimants was authorized and directed. Feldman then filed an application with the board asking the board to direct one-half of the attorney fees to be paid to him and when no action was taken by the board he filed an appeal to the superior court assigning error on the aforementioned lump sum award and on the refusal of the board to have a hearing to determine if he was entitled to a part of the attorney’s fees. The superior court entered judgments dismissing the appeals and Feldman now assigns error on such judgments and names himself as plaintiff in *398error and Edwards, the claimants, the employer and the insurer as defendants in error. *Held:*

Decided February 8, 1963

Rehearing denied February 26, 1963.

*John W. Rogers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Richard W. Best, Bruce B. Edwards, Marvin O’Neal, Jr., Frank W. Scroggins,*contra.

The State Board of Workmen’s Compensation has authority to examine and approve contracts between claimants and their counsel as to the amount of attorney’s fees, but it has no authority, statutory or otherwise, to set the fees of the attorneys, or to examine and approve contracts between attorneys as to the division of their fees when associated to represent claimants. *Fletcher v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*95 Ga. App. 23, 25 (96 SE2d 650); *Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*71 Ga. App. 184 (30 SE2d 420); *Code Ann.*§§ 114-714, 114-9903. The only contracts before the board were the contracts between Edwards and the claimants and such were the only contracts that the board could examine. The superior court properly dismissed the appeals based upon the above principles of law and because there were no issues of law upon which to predicate and base an appeal from the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
HomeGuinea-Bissau

# Guinea-Bissau

40 items

        -    		Guinea-Bissau	  December 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Guinea-Bissau	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Program Management  		Sub-Saharan Africa – Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Small Grants (Summary)	  August 7, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Guinea-Bissau (05-208) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to International Tribunals	  February 8, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Guinea-Bissau (12932) – Agreement Relating to the Employment of Dependents of Official Government Employees	  February 16, 1998 

previous page1234

Back to Top
# C_2005322EN.01000601.xml

| 17.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3995 — Belgacom/Telindus)

(2005/C 322/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 December 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 32005M3995. 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 32005M3995. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony Don DICK.

No. 65745.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1980.

In re Anthony Don Dick, applying for supervisory and remedial writs. Parish of Bossier. No. 56818.

Denied.
#### § 31.14 Application for treatment; active duty personnel.

An applicant for medical relief who is on active duty shall furnish a certificate identifying him. Such certificate shall be signed by an officer or other appropriate supervisory official of the Coast Guard. In an emergency, the officer in charge of a medical relief station, or a designated physician or designated dentist, may accept other evidence of status satisfactory to him.

(Sec. 610(b), 58 Stat. 714 as amended; 33 U.S.C. 763c)
#### Leslie GREENBERG, etc., et al., Appellants, v. BROWARD COUNTY, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1051.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Teddy Dwayne WILLIAMS, and Eis Corporation, a Foreign Corporation doing business in the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 75-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 4, 1975.

Appeal dismissed.