alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005271EN.01001402.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13 July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers

(Case C-303/05)

(2005/C 271/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States compatible with Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, under which framework decisions may be adopted only for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States compatible with Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, under which framework decisions may be adopted only for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States?

1

| 2. | Is Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, in so far as it sets aside verification of the requirement of double criminality for the offences listed therein, compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, more specifically, with the principle of legality in criminal proceedings guaranteed by that provision and with the principle of equality and non-discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, in so far as it sets aside verification of the requirement of double criminality for the offences listed therein, compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, more specifically, with the principle of legality in criminal proceedings guaranteed by that provision and with the principle of equality and non-discrimination?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

1

---
#### § 900.6 Subdivision of claims not authorized.

Debts may not be subdivided to avoid the monetary ceiling established by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2). A debtor's liability arising from a particular transaction or contract shall be considered a single debt in determining whether the debt is one of less than $100,000 (excluding interest, penalties, and administrative costs) or such higher amount as the Attorney General shall from time to time prescribe for purposes of compromise or suspension or termination of collection activity.
§ 501.719 Ex parte communications. ( a ) *Prohibition.* ( 1 ) From the time the Director issues an Order Instituting Proceedings until the date of final decision, no party, interested person, or representative thereof shall knowingly make or cause to be made an ex parte communication.
( 2 ) Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte communication matters as authorized by law, the Secretary's designee and the Administrative Law Judge presiding over any proceeding may not: ( i ) Consult a person or party on an issue, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; or
( ii ) Be responsible to or subject to the supervision, direction of, or evaluation by, an employee engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecutorial functions for the Department.
( b ) Procedure upon occurrence of ex parte communication. If an ex parte communication is received by the Administrative Law Judge or the Secretary's designee, the Administrative Law Judge or the Secretary's designee, as appropriate, shall cause all of such written communication (or, if the communication is oral, a memorandum stating the substance of the communication) to be placed on the record of the proceeding and served on all parties. A party may, not later than 10 days after the date of service, file a response thereto and may recommend that the person making the prohibited communication be sanctioned pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Sanctions.* Any party to the proceeding, a party's representative, or any other interested individual, who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to any appropriate sanction or sanctions imposed by the Administrative Law Judge or the Secretary's designee, as appropriate, for good cause shown, including, but not limited to, exclusion from the hearing and an adverse ruling on the issue that is the subject of the prohibited communication.
HomeBiographies...Namita Biggins

# 				Namita Biggins			

															Spanish Language Spokesperson						Office of International Media Engagement												

				July 1, 2019 -									Present							

Tags

Media Hub of the AmericasState Department Official

Back to Top
§ 124.1 Applicability. The regulations of this subpart are applicable to grants under section 1625 of the Public Health Service Act for construction and modernization projects designed to: ( a ) Eliminate or prevent imminent safety hazards as defined by Federal, State or local fire, building, or life safety codes or regulations, or
( b ) Avoid noncompliance with State or voluntary licensure or accreditation standards.
Exhibit 32
 
 
 
 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 Annual Report of Healthways, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Ben R. Leedle, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mary A. Chaput, Executive Vice President and Chief 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:
 
 (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.
 
 /s/ Ben R. Leedle, Jr.
 Ben R. Leedle, Jr.
 Chief Executive Officer
 March 16, 2010
 
 /s/ Mary A. Chaput
 Mary A. Chaput
 Chief Financial Officer
 March 16, 2010
###### Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

#### § 405.1819 Conduct of contractor hearing.

The hearing shall be open to all parties thereto (see § 405.1815) and to representatives of the contractor and of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (see § 405.1815). The hearing officer(s) shall inquire fully into all of the matters at issue and shall receive into evidence the testimony and any documents which are relevant and material to such matters. If the hearing officer(s) believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, he (they) may, at any time prior to the sending of notice of the decision, reopen the hearing record for the receipt of such evidence. The order in which the evidence and the allegations shall be presented and the conduct of the hearing shall be at the discretion of the hearing officer(s).

[39 FR 34515, Sept. 26, 1974, as amended at 85 FR 59019, Sept. 18, 2020]
#### § 137.300 Since Federal environmental responsibilities are new responsibilities, which may be assumed by Tribes under section 509 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-8], are there additional funds available to Self-Governance Tribes to carry out these formerly inherently Federal responsibilities?

Yes, the Secretary must transfer not less than the amount of funds that the Secretary would have otherwise used to carry out the Federal environmental responsibilities assumed by the Self-Governance Tribe.
# Sao Tome and Principe

38 items

        -    Report  		Sao Tome and Principe	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Sao Tome and Principe	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Sao Tome and Principe	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Sao Tome and Principe	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Sao Tome and Principe (05-819) – Agreement Concerning Defense Cooperation	  August 19, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Sao Tome and Principe (03-1112.2) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  November 12, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Sao Tome and Principe (12985) – Investment Incentive Agreement	  September 10, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		Sao Tome and Principe (97-214) – Telecommunication Agreements Regarding Radio Transmissions Facilities	  February 14, 1997 

previous page1234

Back to Top
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
                         OF SALE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT

     This Fourth Amendment ("Fourth Amendment") to Agreement of Sale and Escrow
Agreement is entered into as of June 6, 1997, by and between HARBOUR REALTY
ADVISORS, INC., as Purchaser, and COURTYARDS OF KENDALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an
Illinois Limited Partnership, as Seller.

                                   RECITALS

     A.   Purchaser and Seller hereto have entered into an Agreement of Sale
("Agreement") and Escrow Agreement ("Escrow Agreement"), both dated March 26,
1997 for the purchase and sale of the apartment project known as Courtyards of
Kendall Apartments which Agreement and Escrow Agreement were amended by a First
Amendment to Agreement of Sale ("First Amendment") dated as of April 10, 1997,
by a Second Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Escrow Agreement ("Second
Amendment") dated as of April 15, 1997, and by a Third Amendment to Agreement
("Third Amendment") dated as of May 1, 1997.

     B.   Purchaser and Seller now wish to further amend the Agreement and the
Escrow Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement and the Escrow Agreement are amended as
follows:

     1.   The Closing date shall be June 20, 1997.

     2.   Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement (as amended by the First and Second Amendments) and the Escrow
Agreement remain in full force and effect.

     3.   All capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as in
the Agreement and Escrow Agreement.

     4.   This Fourth Amendment may be executed in multiple facsimile
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
<PAGE>
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have put their hand and seal as of
the date set forth above.

                                   PURCHASER:

                                   HARBOUR REALTY ADVISORS, INC.

                                   By:   /s/ Leonard Cotton
                                        --------------------------------
                                             President


                                   SELLER:

                                   COURTYARDS OF KENDALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
                                   an Illinois limited partnership

                                   By:  Balcor Partners-IV, an Illinois general
                                        partnership, its general partner


                                   By:  RGF-Balcor Associates-II, an Illinois
                                        general partnership, a general partner

                                   By:  The Balcor Company, a Delaware 
                                        corporation, a general partner


                                   By:   /s/ Michael J. Becker
                                        ----------------------------------


                                   ACKNOWLEDGED BY ESCROW AGENT:

                                   CHARTER TITLE COMPANY


                                   By:
                                        ----------------------------------
<PAGE>
#### § 8.66 Transcript.

In cases in which the hearing is stenographically reported by a Government contract reporter, copies of the transcript may be obtained from the reporter at rates not to exceed the maximum rates fixed by contract between the Government and the reporter. If the hearing is stenographically reported by a regular employee of the Bureau, a copy of the hearing will be supplied to the respondent either without charge or upon the payment of a reasonable fee. Copies of exhibits introduced at the hearing or at the taking of depositions will be supplied to the parties upon the payment of a reasonable fee.

(Sec. 501, Pub. L. 82-137, 65 Stat. 290 (31 U.S.C. 483a))
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21464]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer 
Income Tax Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
718 488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, October 13, at 2 p.m. Eastern 
Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Knispel at 
1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech 
Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web 
site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-21464 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2005243EN.01001201.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/12

---

Appeal brought on 8 August 2005 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 25 May 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-288/03 between TeleTech Holdings, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: TeleTech International, S.A.)

(Case C-312/05 P)

(2005/C 243/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 May 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-288/03 between TeleTech Holdings, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: TeleTech International, S.A.), was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 August 2005 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and uphold its claims.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

This appeal is founded on two grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal is based on the premiss that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 52 of Regulation No 40/94 (1) (in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation) by having misinterpreted that provision in breach of the principle of coexistence and equivalence between Community marks and national marks. This ground of appeal further complains of an infringement, also on account of incorrect interpretation, of Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 and of the appellant's rights of defence.

1

The second ground of appeal alleges that the Court of First Instance's interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 40/94 is vitiated by an error of law resulting from the Court's incorrect application of the test relating to the perception of the relevant public when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Death of Palestinian Activist Nizar Banat

# 									Death of Palestinian Activist Nizar Banat							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

June 24, 2021

We are deeply disturbed by the death of Palestinian activist Nizar Banat and the information that has been reported regarding the circumstances of his death.  We offer our sincere condolences to his family and community.  We urge the Palestinian Authority to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation and to ensure full accountability in this case.  We have serious concerns about Palestinian Authority restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression by Palestinians and harassment of civil society activists and organizations.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPalestinian Territories

Back to Top
#### § 137.265 May a Tribe be reimbursed for actual and reasonable close out costs incurred after the effective date of reassumption?

Yes, a Tribe may be reimbursed for actual and reasonable close out costs incurred after the effective date of reassumption.
<PAGE>   1
                          SEEQ TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (in thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Years Ended
                                                      ----------------------------------------------
                                                      September 30,   September 30,    September 30,
                                                          1997            1996             1995
                                                        -------         -------         -------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>    
PRIMARY
Earnings:
   Net income                                           $ 4,686         $ 2,851         $ 1,330
                                                        =======         =======         =======
Shares:
   Average common shares outstanding                     30,305          30,070          27,244
   Add effect of dilutive options and warrants
     (as determined by the treasury stock method)         1,402           1,962           1,961
                                                        -------         -------         -------
   As adjusted                                           31,707          32,032          29,205
                                                        =======         =======         =======

Primary earnings per share                              $  0.15         $  0.09         $  0.05
                                                        =======         =======         =======

FULLY DILUTED
Earnings:
   Net income                                           $ 4,686         $ 2,851         $ 1,330
                                                        =======         =======         =======
Shares:  
   Average common shares outstanding                     30,305          30,070          27,244
   Add effect of dilutive options and 
    warrants (as determined by the
    treasury stock method)                                1,875           2,078           3,650
                                                        -------         -------         -------
   As adjusted                                           32,180          32,148          30,894
                                                        =======         =======         =======
 
Fully diluted earnings per share                        $  0.15         $  0.09         $  0.04
                                                        =======         =======         =======
</TABLE>
No. 99-6673.

#### In re Tyler.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *informa pauperis*denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3034

AN ACT

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Eduthe Act. the authority for promulgating regulations under cation Assistance Act to extend for two months
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3034

AN ACT

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to extend for two months the authority

for promulgating regulations under the Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3034 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE

2 REGULATIONS.

3 Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determina4 tion and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.

5 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘18 months’’ and

6 inserting ‘‘20 months’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE RICHARD A. GRA FF

______________________

2014

- 1288

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 10/885,569.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL K. M UTTER , Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, of Falls Church, Virginia, argued for appellant. With him

on the brief was D. R ICHARD A NDERSON . Of counsel on the

brief was P ETER K. T RYNA , Peter K. Trzyna Law Office P.C., of Chicago, Illinois.

J OSEPH M ATEL , Associate Solicitor, United States P atent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With h im on the brief were N ATHAN
K. K ELLEY , Solicitor, T HOMAS W. K RAUSE , Deputy Solic itor, and A MY J. N ELSON , Associate Solicitor.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, B RYSON

, and O’M ALLEY

, Ci rcuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 8, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court