alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005330EN.01001601.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Groupe Danone v Commission

(Case T-38/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements and concreted practices - Fines - Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines - Communication on cooperation)

(2005/C 330/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Groupe Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler and M. Waha, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)

Defendant(s):

:

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/37.614/F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes) (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1) and, as a subsidiary plea, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 42,4125 million; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 42,4125 million;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the Commission. The Commission shall bear a quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the Commission. The Commission shall bear a quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.

1

---
40645.

#### McNATT v. GREYHOUND CORPORATION.

Franicum, Judge.

1. Where, on the trial of a wrongful death action in which the plaintiff contended that the act of the defendant’s bus driver in wrongfully ejecting her husband from the defendant’s bus precipitated a heart attack which caused his death some 17 days thereafter, one of the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence was whether plaintiff’s husband was intoxicated at the time he sought passage on the defendant’s bus, and where the defendant’s driver testified that he had on a previous occasion several months before carried the plaintiff’s husband on his bus; that on that *31occasion the plaintiff’s husband was intoxicated and gave him considerable trouble, using profanity and talking loud; that on the occasion now in question when plaintiff’s husband approached the bus he was accompanied by a man (not otherwise identified) who was carrying his suitcase for him, and that the man placed the suitcase on the steps of the bus and assisted plaintiff’s husband in boarding the bus, it was permissible for the court to admit testimony by this witness over the mere objection that such testimony was hearsay that the man who was accompanying, holding the arm of, and assisting plaintiff’s husband who was staggering said to him at that time: “He’s possibly been drinking a little too much. But, he won’t give you any trouble.” We think that this evidence was admissible for the purpose of explaining the motive and action of the bus driver in not allowing the deceased to become a passenger on the bus. Furthermore, if this evidence was not clearly admissible, its admissibility was merely doubtful, and it was properly admitted and left for the jury to determine what weight and credit they would give it. *Atlas Auto Finance Co. v. Atkins,*79 Ga. App. 91, 98 (9) (53 SE2d 171).

Decided June 17, 1964

Rehearing denied July 2, 1964.

*Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McFlmurray, Isaac S. Jolles,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harris, Chance, McCracken & Harrison, Henry T. Chance,*contra.

2. An objection to evidence on the ground that it has “nothing to do with the issue before the court” is equivalent to and no more than that an objection that such evidence is irrelevant. Such an objection is too general to be considered. *Holliman v. State,*42 Ga. App. 322 (2) (155 SE 906).

3. The remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial is neither argued nor insisted upon in this court and is, therefore, treated as abandoned. The evidence authorized, if it did not demand, a verdict for the defendant, and no error of law appearing, the trial court did not err in denying a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to
the best of my knowledge, 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
     for the periods presented.

                                       /s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       ----------------------------
                                       C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                       August 20, 2003
#### Harry HIGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-886.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

Harry High, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the, Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and'having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComparisons of Rig and Engine Dynamic Events in the Compressor of an Axi-Centrifugal Turboshaft EngineSteady state and dynamic data were acquired in a T55-L-712 compressor rig. In addition, a T55-L-12 engine was instrumented and similar data were acquired. Rig and engine stall/surge data were analyzed using modal techniques. This paper compares rig and engine preliminary results for the ground idle (approximately 60% of design speed) point. The results of these analyses indicate both rig and engine dynamic event are preceded by indications of traveling wave energy in front of the compressor face. For both rig and engine, the traveling wave energy contains broad band energy with some prominent narrow peaks and, while the events are similar in many ways, some noticeable differences exist between the results of the analyses of rig data and engine data.Document ID19970002986Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOwen, A. Karl*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Mattern, Duane L.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Le, Dzu K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberASME-96-GT-239ARL-TR-1108E-10478NAS 1.15:107339NASA-TM-107339Meeting InformationMeeting: Gas Turbine and Aeroengine CongressLocation: BirminghamCountry: United KingdomStart Date: June 10, 1996End Date: June 13, 1996Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N11765Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-0LDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970002986.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# Sweden

253 items

        -    Report  		Sweden	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Sweden	  April 25, 2019 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE)	   
        -    Report  		Sweden	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Sweden	  June 29, 2017 

previous page1…212223242526next page

Back to Top
40923.

#### WELLS v. THE STATE.

Russell, Judge.

1. On a review of the denial of a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, the appellate courts decide only whether the verdict is supported by any evidence.

2. “In contemplation of law an operator of a motor vehicle on the public highway is under the influence of intoxicating liquor when he is so affected by it as to make it less safe for him to operate a motor vehicle than it would be if he were not affected by such intoxicating liquor.” *Bishop v. State,*92 Ga. App. 494 (2) (88 SE2d 746).

3. Testimony by a witness who has had an opportunity to observe the fact that another is under the influence of intoxicants is not a mere conclusion. *King v. State,*86 Ga. App.*508786 (72 SE2d 502); *Fowler v. State,*82 Ga. App. 197 (60 SE2d 473); *Harris v. State,*97 Ga. App. 495 (103 SE2d 443); *Bice v. State,*98 Ga. App. 803 (107 SE2d 270).

Decided October 20, 1964.

4. Two police officers, witnesses for the State, testified that the defendant “scratched off” at a traffic intersection and drove a distance of over a mile and across a county line at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. One of these officers also testified that the defendant was “heavily influenced . . . appeared to be under the intoxication of whisky . . . appeared to me to be under intoxication too much to be driving. He was less safe to be driving. . . I told him that he’s have to come back with me and he told me that he wasn’t coming. And he began to curse more and he told me that I’d have to whip his butt if I brought him back.” The second officer testified that “he just took off out of town wide open. . . . Mr. Wells was drinking or you could tell he was drinking and you could smell the liquor in the car and they [the defendant and a passenger in the front seat] also had a pint bottle, it was about half full of whiskey laying in the front seat between them ... he was under the influence, you could tell by his eyes was bloodshot and red and his face was red and you could tell by the way he, well, you’ve seen people talk thick tongue when they was drinking, by his speech . . . he was in an unsafe condition to drive.” A third witness, a sheriff who saw the defendant 60 to 90 minutes later testified that “he was full, drinking at that time ... he certainly was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. . . I smelled of his breath right there on the couch. I also talked with him and his ways, his actions, the way he looked, and the way he was going on and he was just full of liquor . . . if he’d a been driving as full as he was at that time he would have been less safe to be out on any highway.” The evidence, although disputed, was sufficient to authorize conviction for the offenses of speeding and driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

*509
      *Beverly B. Hayes,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Carlton Warnock, Solicitor,*contra.
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.48 Visits. ( a ) *Number of allowable visits under Part A.* To the extent that all coverage requirements specified in this subpart are met, payment may be made on behalf of eligible beneficiaries under Part A for an unlimited number of covered home health visits. All Medicare home health services are covered under hospital insurance unless there is no Part A entitlement.
( b ) *Number of visits under Part B.* To the extent that all coverage requirements specified in this subpart are met, payment may be made on behalf of eligible beneficiaries under Part B for an unlimited number of covered home health visits. Medicare home health services are covered under Part B only when the beneficiary is not entitled to coverage under Part A.
( c ) *Definition of visit.* A visit is an episode of personal contact with the beneficiary by staff of the HHA or others under arrangements with the HHA, for the purpose of providing a covered service. ( 1 ) Generally, one visit may be covered each time an HHA employee or someone providing home health services under arrangements enters the beneficiary's home and provides a covered service to a beneficiary who meets the criteria of § 409.42 (confined to the home, under the care of a physician or allowed practitioner, in need of skilled services, and under a plan of care).
( 2 ) If the HHA furnishes services in an outpatient facility under arrangements with the facility, one visit may be covered for each type of service provided.
( 3 ) If two individuals are needed to provide a service, two visits may be covered. If two individuals are present, but only one is needed to provide the care, only one visit may be covered.
( 4 ) A visit is initiated with the delivery of covered home health services and ends at the conclusion of delivery of covered home health services. In those circumstances in which all reasonable and necessary home health services cannot be provided in the course of a single visit, HHA staff or others providing services under arrangements with the HHA may remain at the beneficiary's residence between visits (for example, to provide non-covered services). However, if all covered services could be provided in the course of one visit, only one visit may be covered.
[59 FR 65497, Dec. 20, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 27620, May 8, 2020]
#### § 21.28 Age requirements, Regular Corps, senior assistant grade and below.

No candidate for appointment to the Regular Corps, except in the nurse category, shall be appointed (a) after age 31 to the permanent junior assistant grade, (b) after age 34 to the permanent assistant grade, or (c) after age 37 to the permanent senior assistant grade: *Provided,* That the Surgeon General may waive these age limitations, subject to other provisions of law, in the case of any officer of the Reserve Corps who is recommended for appointment to the Regular Corps by the Chief of the Bureau to which he is assigned and who has been on continuous active duty for at least two years immediately preceding the date of such recommendation. The age limitations for candidates who have had prior active service in the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service shall be increased by the period of such service.

[27 FR 3886, Apr. 24, 1962]
HomeNicaragua

# Nicaragua

139 items

        -    Remarks  		The Responsibility to Protect Focal Points	  Uzra ZeyaSeptember 15, 2022Organization of American StatesWashington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Nicaragua National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 15, 2022 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Nicaragua	  September 15, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Nicaragua	  September 9, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Nicaragua	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Release of the Section 353 List of Corrupt and Undemocratic Actors for Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 20, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Nicaragua	  July 19, 2022 
        -    		Cases Filed Against Nicaragua	   
        -    		Lopez-Goyne et al. v. Nicaragua	   
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing on Food Security across Latin America with Jose Fernandez, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment	  Jose W. FernandezJune 23, 2022 

previous page1…45678…14next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Under Secretary Uzra Zeya as the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues

# 									Designation of Under Secretary Uzra Zeya as the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

December 20, 2021

I have designated Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya to serve concurrently as the United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, an important role she will take on effective immediately.  She will also continue to serve as Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, a position for which she was sworn in on July 14, 2021.

Special Coordinator Zeya will coordinate U.S. government policies, programs, and projects concerning Tibetan issues, consistent with the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, as amended by the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2020.  Specifically, she will promote substantive dialogue, without preconditions, between the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Dalai Lama, his representatives, or democratically elected Tibetan leaders in support of a negotiated agreement on Tibet.  She will promote respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Tibetans, including their freedom of religion or belief, and will support efforts to preserve their distinct historical, linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage.  Special Coordinator Zeya will further support U.S. efforts to address the humanitarian needs of Tibetan refugees and diaspora communities, including those in the United States who have faced threats and intimidation instigated by the PRC.  She also will promote activities to protect the environment and sustainably manage the water and other natural resources of the Tibetan plateau.  Consistent with the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018, she also will seek to increase access to Tibet for U.S. officials, journalists, and other citizens.

Special Coordinator Zeya will work closely with Tibetan cultural, religious, and political leaders, the U.S. Congress, international allies and partners, and civil society representatives on these matters.

This designation demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to advance the human rights of Tibetans, help preserve their distinct heritage, address their humanitarian needs, and meet environmental and water resource challenges of the Tibetan plateau.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateTibetOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan IssuesUnder Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

Back to Top
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2010- C>Z5eL 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKET OSTMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

r- W . <D^^ Z ACTIOr' TjATE CM ' (^, X.^1 a 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the abovejwocedure, the 2I;^ay period in 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

8 October 2010 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

Intemational Air Transport Association 

1776 K St. N.W. #12" Floor 

Washington DC 20006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,027
<SECURITIES>                                    15,515
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (30)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,202
<PP&E>                                           3,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,584
<OTHER-SE>                                        (49)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,986
<SALES>                                         12,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,055
<CGS>                                            4,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (23)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,124)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                       405
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                660
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
- Office Home
- Developments
- General Resources
- Family Law
- Dispute Settlement
- Judicial Assistance
- Commercial Law
- Advisory Committee on Private International Law

HomeOffice of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law...Developments

# 									Developments							

Office of the Legal Adviser

### Treaties Transmitted to the Senate

The President has transmitted the following treaty transmittal packages to the Senate:
        - the Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit, on February 19, 2016;
        - the Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, on February 19, 2016; and
        - the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, on December 9, 2016.

### Treaties Approved by the Senate (but not presently in force for the United States)

On January 2, 2019, the Senate provided advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade.

Tags

DevelopmentLegal AdviserPrivate International Law

Back to Top