alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 802.221 Foreign person. ( a ) The term *foreign person* means: ( 1 ) Any foreign national, foreign government, or foreign entity; or
( 2 ) Any entity over which control is exercised or exercisable by a foreign national, foreign government, or foreign entity.
( b ) Any entity over which control is exercised or exercisable by a foreign person is a foreign person.
( c ) Examples: ( 1 ) *Example 1.* Corporation A is organized under the laws of a foreign state and is engaged in business only outside the United States. All of its shares are held by Corporation X, which solely controls Corporation A. Corporation X is organized in the United States and is wholly owned and controlled by U.S. nationals. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A, although organized and operating only outside the United States, is not a foreign entity due to § 802.218(b) and is not a foreign person.
( 2 ) *Example 2.* Same facts as the first sentence of the example in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The government of the foreign state under whose laws Corporation A is organized exercises control over Corporation A because a law establishing Corporation A gives the foreign state the right to appoint Corporation A's board members. Corporation A is a foreign person.
( 3 ) *Example 3.* Corporation A is organized in the United States, is engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, and is controlled by Corporation X. Corporation X is organized under the laws of a foreign state, its principal place of business is located outside the United States, and 50 percent of its shares are held by foreign nationals and 50 percent of its shares are held by U.S. nationals. Both Corporation A and Corporation X are foreign persons. Corporation A is also a U.S. business.
( 4 ) *Example 4.* Corporation A is organized under the laws of a foreign state and is owned and controlled by a foreign national. A branch of Corporation A engages in interstate commerce in the United States. Corporation A (including its branch) is a foreign person. The branch is also a U.S. business.
( 5 ) *Example 5.* Corporation A is organized under the laws of a foreign state and its principal place of business is located outside the United States. Forty-five percent of the equity interest in Corporation A is owned in equal shares by numerous unrelated foreign investors, none of whom has control. The foreign investors have no formal or informal arrangement with any other holder of equity interest in Corporation A to act in concert regarding Corporation A. Corporation A can demonstrate that the remainder of the equity interest in Corporation A is ultimately held by U.S. nationals. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A is not a foreign entity or foreign person.
( 6 ) *Example 6.* Same facts as the example in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, except that one of the foreign investors, a foreign national, controls Corporation A. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A is not a foreign entity due to § 802.218(b), but it is a foreign person under paragraph (a)(2) of this section because it is controlled by a foreign national.
HomeTunisia

# Tunisia

98 items

        -    Direct Line Event  		Business Opportunities in Cybersecurity and Cloud Computing in Tunisia	  March 21, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Tunisia National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 20, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Tunis, Tunisia: American Cooperative School of Tunis: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Tunisia	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Libya and Tunisia	  October 24, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Tunis, Tunisia: American Cooperative School of Tunis: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 19, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		2023 Secretary’s Award for Global Anti-Racism Champions 	  August 8, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 26, 2023	  Vedant PatelJuly 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Sison’s Travel to Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, and Türkiye	  July 10, 2023 

123…10next page

Back to Top
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31246

Conference Calendar

 

SALVADOR RONDAU HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN B.Z. CAPLINGER, Director of

Immigration & Naturalization Service of

New Orleans,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1173-K

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Salvador Rondau Hernandez appeals the district court’s

denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his continued

detention as an excludable alien. Hernandez argues that his

indefinite detention violates the Eighth Amendment and that he

should be paroled, deported, or allowed to leave voluntarily. 

Hernandez has not identified a country which is willing and able
No. 95-31246

- 2 -

to accept him, however. The Attorney General is authorized to

detain, indefinitely, excluded aliens who cannot be deported. 

Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988 F.2d 1437, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993),

amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 997 F.2d 1122 ( 5th Cir.

1993).

AFFIRMED.
# Democratic Republic of the Congo

148 items

        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Democratic Republic of the Congo	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  November 7, 2019 
        -    Report  		Congo, Democratic Republic of the	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Democratic Republic of the Congo	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Democratic Republic of the Congo	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Democratic Republic of the Congo	  April 19, 2019 
        -    Report  		Democratic Republic of the Congo	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		2018 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 10, 2018 
        -    Report  		Congo, Democratic Republic of the	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Democratic Republic of the Congo	  June 28, 2018 

previous page1…1112131415next page

Back to Top
Order entered April 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00086-CR

No. 05-14-00087-CR

JOSEPH JULIAN GUERRA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 219-82353-2012 and 219-81886-2013

ORDER

Appellant’s April 1, 2015 motion for leave to file his reply brief in these cases is 

GRANTED. We deem the reply brief timely filed and DIRECT the Clerk to file appellant’s 

reply brief as of April 1, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-16,351-14

EX PARTE ALONZO DIEGO FULLER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-12265-J IN THE 35 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Fuller v. State, No. 11-03-00093-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 13, 2005)(not

designated for publication). 

In his present application, Applicant raises grounds challenging his conviction. This

application, however, presents a more serious question. Applicant alleges that he is actually

innocent. In support of his allegations, Applicant submitted a document purporting to be a lab
2

report.

The trial court held a habeas hearing and has found that the document presented to this Court

is fraudulent. 

The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1

(1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). We find that Applicant has abused

The Great Writ by submitting false evidence. We dismissthis application and based on Applicant’s

submission of false evidence, we find that Applicant has filed a frivolous lawsuit.

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: April 11, 2018

Do not publish
----

|   | EXHIBIT      32.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C., SECTION1350 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | BY  /s/ Connie Woods Hawkins         |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Connie      Woods Hawkins     |
|   | Title:  Chief      Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  May      9, 2008              |

|   | of      this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to      Security Capital Corporation and willbe |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | retained      by Security Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and      Exchange Commission or its staff |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | upon      request. |
|--------|--------------------|

----
Order entered January 6, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01489-CV

MORRIS COE, Appellant

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-03634-B

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record in this case. The Court notes that the appeal 

bond filed in the justice court appears to have been filed on July 7, 2014, but the justice court file 

stamp on the document is not dark enough to make that determination. The Court ORDERS

John Warren, County Clerk of Dallas County, Texas, to file within FIVE (5) days of the date of 

this order a supplemental clerk’s record that includes a copy of the appeal bond from the justice 

court with a legible justice court date stamp.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### William Roger BOWLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### § 589.324 Loans or other extensions of credit.

The term *loans or other extensions of credit* means any transfer or extension of funds or credit on the basis of an obligation to repay, or any assumption or guarantee of the obligation of another to repay an extension of funds or credit, including: Overdrafts; currency swaps; purchases of debt securities issued by persons subject to the prohibitions in this part; purchases of a loan made by another person; sales of financial assets subject to an agreement to repurchase; renewals or refinancings whereby funds or credits are transferred to or extended to a prohibited borrower or prohibited recipient; the issuance of standby letters of credit; and drawdowns on existing lines of credit.
[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:****Annual report [electronicresource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.27:H 75/2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000635170
 
September 16, 2019
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2858

To amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide

that any survivor annuity for a child that terminates by reason of

such child marrying shall resume, absent any other disqualifying event

or condition, if and when that marriage ends.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1996

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States

Code, to provide that any survivor annuity for a child

that terminates by reason of such child marrying shall

resume, absent any other disqualifying event or condition, if and when that marriage ends.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—Section

5 8341(e) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by add6 ing at the end the following:
2

•HR 2858 IH

1 ‘‘(4) If the annuity of a child under this subchapter

2 terminates under paragraph (3)(E) because of marriage,

3 then, if such marriage ends, such annuity shall resume

4 on the first day of the month in which it ends, but only

5 if—

6 ‘‘(A) any lump sum paid is returned to the

7 Fund; and

8 ‘‘(B) that individual is not otherwise ineligible

9 for such annuity.’’.

10 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

11 Section 8443(b) of such title is amended by adding at the

12 end the following: ‘‘If the annuity of a child under this

13 subchapter terminates under subparagraph (E) because of

14 marriage, then, if such marriage ends, such annuity shall

15 resume on the first day of the month in which it ends,

16 but only if any lump sum paid is returned to the Fund,

17 and that individual is not otherwise ineligible for such an18 nuity.’’.

19 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

20 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with

21 respect to any termination of marriage taking effect on

22 or after November 1, 1993, except that any recomputation

23 of benefits shall be payable only with respect to amounts
3

•HR 2858 IH

1 accruing for periods beginning on or after the date of the

2 enactment of this Act.

Æ
# C_2005177EN.01003302.xml

| 19.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/33

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3809 — Siemens/Flender)

(2005/C 177/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 June 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 32005M3809. 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 32005M3809. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### § 583.703 Penalty imposition.

If, after considering any written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice and any relevant facts, OFAC determines that there was a violation by the alleged violator named in the Pre-Penalty Notice and that a civil monetary penalty is appropriate, OFAC may issue a Penalty Notice to the violator containing a determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty. For additional details concerning issuance of a Penalty Notice, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter. The issuance of the Penalty Notice shall constitute final agency action. The violator has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in Federal district court.
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 24, 2017

v No. 333990

Kent Circuit Court MONTY LAMAR JAMISON, LC No. 15

- 008063

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: M URRAY

, P .J., and S AWYER and M ARKEY , JJ.

S AWYER

, J

. ( concurring ).

I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I write separately because I do not believe that we need nor should engage in the analysis done by the majority. At most, defendant may have been entitled to withdraw his plea (which the trial court inf ormed him of). People v

Killebrew , 416 Mich 189, 209

- 210; 330 NW2d 834 (1982). But, for defendant to challenge this on appeal, he must have moved to withdraw his plea. MCR 6.310(D). Defendant did not do so. The failure to move to withdraw the plea pre cludes the plain

- error analysis that the majority engages in. People v Armisted , 295 Mich App 32, 48; 822 NW2d 47 (2011). 1 Accordingly, I would merely affirm the trial court based on defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea.

/s/ David H. Sawyer

1 I recognize that the majority does rely on Armisted for the opposite proposition. But it relies on the wrong part of Armisted . On the page cited by the majority, p 46, Armisted merely sets out the basic plain error standard. But later, on page 48, Armisted makes it clear that the failure to move to withdraw a plea precludes any appellate review . See also People v Baham , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 331787 , issued 9/12/2017), slip op at 2.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of Foreign Assistance...Contact Us

# 									Contact Us							

Office of Foreign Assistance

##### Have questions about evaluations?

Please contact EvaluationPolicyForeignAssistance@state.gov with any queries related to evaluations.

##### Want more information about ForeignAssistance.gov?

If you are looking for information about ForeignAssistance.gov, please contact fadatarequests@usaid.gov.

Back to Top
#### § 137.309 How are NEPA and NHPA obligations typically enforced?

NEPA and NHPA obligations are typically enforced by interested parties who may file lawsuits against Federal agencies alleging that the agencies have not complied with their legal obligations under NEPA and NHPA. These lawsuits may only be filed in Federal court under the provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 701-706. Under the APA, a Federal judge reviews the Federal agency's actions based upon an administrative record prepared by the Federal agency. The judge gives appropriate deference to the agency's decisions and does not substitute the court's views for those of the agency. Jury trials and civil discovery are not permitted in APA proceedings. If a Federal agency has failed to comply with NEPA or NHPA, the judge may grant declaratory or injunctive relief to the interested party. No money damages or fines are permitted in APA proceedings.
EXHIBIT 32.1






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-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
K. Bench, Acting Chief Executive 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:
May 14,
2008                                                                                     /s/  Robert K.
Bench


Robert K.
Bench


Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         548,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,858,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   189,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,302,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,561,000
<PP&E>                                         825,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,881,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,616,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,059,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,279,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,881,000
<SALES>                                      5,863,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,863,000
<CGS>                                        3,970,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,970,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,662,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,884,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,884,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,884,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)



</TABLE>